linux-kernel - Re: checkpatch, a patch checking script.

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <20070502124154.fa55fec9.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Date:	Wed, 2 May 2007 12:41:54 -0700
From:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Geert Uytterhoeven <Geert.Uytterhoeven@...ycom.com>
Cc:	Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
	Dave Jones <davej@...hat.com>,
	Randy Dunlap <randy.dunlap@...cle.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: checkpatch, a patch checking script.

On Wed, 2 May 2007 17:32:49 +0200 (CEST)
Geert Uytterhoeven <Geert.Uytterhoeven@...ycom.com> wrote:

> On Wed, 2 May 2007, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > On Wed, May 02, 2007 at 04:28:27PM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> > >   - Check for GNU extension __FUNCTION__
> > 
> > __FUNCTION__ is prefered  over __func__
> 
> Is there a reason for that?
>   - __FUNCTION__ is a GNU extension
>   - __func__ is C99
>   - __func__ is shorter to type ;-)
> 

In that case we should use __func__.

But we discussed this at some length 3-4 years ago and decided to use
__FUNCTION__.  I don't remember why.  Perhaps problems with gcc support for
__func__?


(It could have been that compile-time string concatenation was involved:


        printf("xxx" __FILE__);			/* works */
        printf("xxx" __FUNCTION__);		/* doesn't */

Or not.)

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/