https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30811
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|__FUNCTION__ allowed in |__FUNCTION__ allowed in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30811
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||accepts-invalid, diagnostic
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30811
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|2016-02-02 00:00:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30811
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2016-2-2
--- Comment #7 from Martin Sebor
--- Comment #6 from sebor at roguewave dot com 2007-03-09 18:25 ---
(In reply to comment #5)
Good point! I hadn't thought of that. Since that option is out and __FUNCTION__
should simply behave identically to __func__ and be disallowed in global or
namespace scope function argument list
--- Comment #5 from bangerth at dealii dot org 2007-03-09 03:43 ---
If you make it defined earlier than the standard says, then you
get into trouble for cases like this:
void f() {
struct X {
void g(const char * = __FUNCTION__) {}
};
}
According to the N1970, this ref
--- Comment #4 from sebor at roguewave dot com 2007-02-15 23:06 ---
The wording proposed in N1970 for the C++ __func__ indentifier reads:
-1- The identifier __func__ shall be implicitly declared by the translator
as if, immediately following the opening brace of each function defin
--- Comment #3 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-02-15 22:54 ---
IIRC __FUNCTION__ is really __func__ defined by the C99 standard. So is
__func__ allowed as a default argument in the C++0x?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30811
--- Comment #2 from sebor at roguewave dot com 2007-02-15 21:29 ---
No, I'm not aware of any such paper. AFAIK, neither __FUNCTION__ nor
__PRETTY_FUNCTION__ is specified by either C or C++, or proposed for inclusion
either of them (I could be wrong). They're gcc extensions, aren't they?
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-02-15 21:17 ---
Do you know the status of the C++0x paper about this C99 "extension"?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30811
10 matches
Mail list logo