Do any of the compilers we care about not support __func__ or __FUNCTION__?

[Christopher R. Hertel]

More than 10 years ago, I rewrote the Debug module to include __func__ if it
was available.  If __func__ isn't available on a platform, it *should*
simply be ignored.  Some of the code that has the function name hard-coded
is probably from that era--stuff that wasn't cleaned up--or code added by
folks who didn't know that the function name was automatically included.

Chris -)-----

On 07/19/2012 01:13 PM, Richard Sharpe wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 19, 2012 at 10:17 AM, David Disseldorp <ddiss at suse.de> wrote:
>> On Thu, 19 Jul 2012 09:35:09 -0700
>> Richard Sharpe <realrichardsharpe at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I am sick of seeing things like:
>>>
>>>                                 DEBUG(5,("read_fd_with_timeout: "
>>>                                         "blocking read. EOF from client.\n"));
>>>                                 return NT_STATUS_END_OF_FILE;
>>>
>>> where the name of the calling function has been laboriously typed in
>>> ... and there have been cases where code has been moved around and the
>>> function name not corrected.
>>
>> I totally agree. It's redundant information with the __func__ prefix
>> added by DEBUG, and is often incorrect.
> 
> Actually, David, thanks for explaining what I was really complaining about.
> 
> Yeah, since DEBUG puts the __func__prefix in the log, we don't need to
> repeat the function name. It just clutters things up.
> 
> 

-- 
"Implementing CIFS - the Common Internet FileSystem" ISBN: 013047116X
Samba Team -- http://www.samba.org/     -)-----   Christopher R. Hertel
jCIFS Team -- http://jcifs.samba.org/   -)-----   ubiqx development, uninq.
ubiqx Team -- http://www.ubiqx.org/     -)-----   crh at ubiqx.mn.org
OnLineBook -- http://ubiqx.org/cifs/    -)-----   crh at ubiqx.org