[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v3 01/46] Replace all occurances of __FUNCTION__

From: Alistair Francis
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v3 01/46] Replace all occurances of __FUNCTION__ with __func__
Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2017 06:51:28 -0800

On Tue, Nov 7, 2017 at 11:52 PM, Markus Armbruster <address@hidden> wrote:
> Eric Blake <address@hidden> writes:
>> On 11/07/2017 04:12 AM, Markus Armbruster wrote:
>>> Juan Quintela <address@hidden> writes:
>>>> Alistair Francis <address@hidden> wrote:
>>>>> Replace all occurs of __FUNCTION__ except for the check in checkpatch
>>>>> with the non GCC specific __func__.
>>>>> +++ b/audio/audio_int.h
>>>>> @@ -253,7 +253,7 @@ static inline int audio_ring_dist (int dst, int src, 
>>>>> int len)
>>>>>  #if defined _MSC_VER || defined __GNUC__
>>>>> -#define AUDIO_FUNC __FUNCTION__
>>>>> +#define AUDIO_FUNC __func__
>>>>>  #else
>>>>>  #define AUDIO_FUNC __FILE__ ":" AUDIO_STRINGIFY (__LINE__)
>>>>>  #endif
>>>> Unrelated to this patch ....
>>>> Do we really support other compilers than msc and gcc?
>>> Let me rephrase the question: do we really support compilers that don't
>>> understand __func__?  The presence of numerous unconditional uses of
>>> __func__ in the tree means the answer is no.  Let's replace AUDIO_FUNC
>>> by plain __func__.
>> Answered elsewhere in patch 3/46 (where we DO replace AUDIO_FUNC by
>> __func__).
> I see.
> Put 03/46 first, so we don't have to mess with AUDIO_FUNC twice?

I would really like to avoid that, as the conflicts will be a bit of a
mess. The way I see it there will be a lot of churn no matter what,
so we don't gain much by swapping the order around.

I have a new series ready to send today, so I'm going to send that
through as I would like at least some of these patches to make it in
2.11. After that if you think strongly the order should be changed I
can change it in the next version.


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]