David Weinehall wrote: > > ... > > Since the C99 spec does not state anything about __FUNCTION__, changing > > it from the current behavior does not seem like a wise thing to do. > > > > Any pointers to someone to complain to, or is there no chance for > > reversal? > > Because the want people to stop using a gcc-specific way and start > using the C99-mandated way instead?! Very sane imho. > They shouldn't take a GNU extension which has been offered for ten years and suddenly revert it, or unoptionally spit a warning. But they keep on doing this. I've had large codebases which compiled just fine five years ago. But with a current compiler, same codebase produces an *enormous* number of warnings. There's no switch to turn them off and going in and changing the code is clearly not an option. The only options are to: 1: Not use the newer compiler 2: Grotty sed script to gobble the warnings 3: Fix the compiler. I've done all three :( - - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo _at_ vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Follow-Ups:
- Re: __FUNCTION__David Weinehall <tao _at_ acc.umu.se>
- __FUNCTION__Vladimir Kondratiev <vladimir.kondratiev _at_ intel.com>
- Re: __FUNCTION__Greg KH <greg _at_ kroah.com>
- Re: __FUNCTION__jtv <jtv _at_ xs4all.nl>
- Re: __FUNCTION__Greg KH <greg _at_ kroah.com>
- Re: __FUNCTION__David Weinehall <tao _at_ acc.umu.se>
- Prev by Date: Re: [2.4.17/18pre] VM and swap - it's really unusable
- Next by Date: Re: Two hdds on one channel - why so slow?
- Previous by thread: Re: __FUNCTION__
- Next by thread: Re: __FUNCTION__
- Indexes:[Main][Thread]