brycel added a comment.
In https://reviews.llvm.org/D33497#763307, @lebedev.ri wrote:
> 1. What about `__PRETTY_FUNCTION__` ?
`__PRETTY_FUNCTION__` is a little more useful, it at least tells you which
function the lambda is defined in:
#include <stdio.h>
int main() {
auto f = [] {
printf("__func__: %s\n", __func__);
printf("__FUNCTION__: %s\n", __FUNCTION__);
printf("__PRETTY_FUNCTION__: %s\n", __PRETTY_FUNCTION__);
};
f();
}
results in the output:
__func__: operator()
__FUNCTION__: operator()
__PRETTY_FUNCTION__: auto main()::(anonymous class)::operator()() const
I think `__PRETTY_FUNCTION__` inside a lambda is useful enough not to warn
about.
> 2. Consider following generic error handling macro: (ThrowException is some
> template function) ``` #undef STR #define STR(a) XSTR(a)
>
> #define ThrowExceptionHelper(CLASS, fmt, ...)
> ThrowException<CLASS>(__FILE__ ":" STR(__LINE__) ": %s: " fmt,
> __PRETTY_FUNCTION__, ##__VA_ARGS__) #endif ``` Which is called like
> `if(somethig) ThrowException(std::exception, "%s", "bar");` Even though the
> function name may be useless, file/line info is still there and is(?)
> correct. Perhaps there should not be a warning in such a case?
That's a good point. I'll look into suppressing the warning if we're in a macro
definition where `__FILE__` and `__LINE__` are both used. It may suppress some
warnings that would be legitimate (such as if `__FILE__`/`__LINE__` are written
but not actually output anywhere), but in those cases it's probably impossible
to figure out the author's intention.
https://reviews.llvm.org/D33497
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
