Wolfgang Denk schrieb: > Dear Thomas Weber, > > In message <4b1cfef3.7080...@corscience.de> you wrote: > >>> Which problem is this supposed to fix? >>> > ... > >> In commit 60f61e6d7655400bb785a2ef637581679941f6d1 the following calls >> where changed. >> >> - DM9000_DMP_PACKET("eth_send", packet, length); >> + DM9000_DMP_PACKET(__func__ , packet, length); >> >> - DM9000_DMP_PACKET("eth_rx", rdptr, RxLen); >> + DM9000_DMP_PACKET(__func__ , rdptr, RxLen); >> >> The identifier __func__ is used to call this macro. Formerly it was a >> string "eth_send" for the function name. >> >> printf("eth_send" ":length ...") worked, but printf(__func__ ":length >> ...") doesn't compile. (tested with gcc-4.4.1) >> > > Well, and exactly this is valuable information which should be > included into the commit message. > > Indeed, neither __func__ nor __FUNCTION__ can be concatenated; for > some reason gcc seems to consider these as strings, but not as string > constants. Dunno why; probably there is a good reason for this, but > it looks stupid to me. > > Best regards, > > Wolfgang Denk > > Hello,
should I resend the better formatted patch with a proper subject line and a more detailed comment? How to name the patch? [Patch V2] ? Thomas Weber _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot