------- Comment #7 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-05-10 15:06 -------
(In reply to comment #5)
> To A Pinski
> While I am _not_ a C lawyer, the following seems pertinent:
Why do you think this is related to the C standard?
>
> 1 __FUNCTION__ is _not_ a predefined macro. However __func__ a predefined
> identifier and I will take this up with the kernel people. However, even
> changing__FUNCTION__ to __func__ still produces an error. Let the language
> lawyer sort this out.
So what?
> 2 Taking __FUNCTION__ entirely out of the original Macro Definition and using
> all of the kernel paraphernalia produces valid code. Out of that context I can
> not get even __FILE__ to work properly; only __line__
>
> 3 Your "Hi" misses the point because it is certainly not a predefined macro
> and not even a predefined identifier. Therefore the comparison seems invalid
> to
> me.
HUH? Look at how __FILE__ gets subsituted.
>
> I am reopening this because I believe that the raised by "__func__" should be
> addressed. Also it is not the first time that the kernel people found ways to
> get GCC closer to the standards.
__func__ is a static variable and that is how the C standard defines it. It
will be put into the section anchor.
You will also have issues with:
static int t;
void f(void)
{
asm ("" : : "I"(&t));
}
=====
But all of that is undefined as explained by how the documentation is defined.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC|dje at gcc dot gnu dot org |
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution| |INVALID
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27528
