This web mail archive is frozen.
This page is part of a frozen web archive of this mailing list.
You can still navigate around this archive, but know that no new mails
have been added to it since July of 2016.
Click here to be taken to the new web archives of this list; it includes all the mails that are in this frozen archive plus all new mails that have been sent to the list since it was migrated to the new archives.
N.M. Maclaren wrote:
> On Sep 9 2009, George Bosilca wrote:
>> On Sep 9, 2009, at 14:16 , Lenny Verkhovsky wrote:
>>> does C99 complient compiler is something unusual
>>> or is there a policy among OMPI developers/users that prevent me f
>>> rom using __func__ instead of hardcoded strings in the code ?
>> __func__ is what you should use. We take care of having it defined
>> in _all_ cases. If the compiler doesn't support it we define it
>> manually (to __FUNCTION__ or to __FILE__ in the worst case), so it
>> is always available (even if it doesn't contain what one might
>> expect such in the case of __FILE__).
> That's a good, practical solution. A slight rider is that you shouldn't
> be clever with it - such as using it in preprocessor statements. I tried
> some tests at one stage, and there were 'interesting' variations on how
> different compilers interpreted C99. Let alone the fact that it might
> map to something else, with different rules. If you need to play such
> games, use hard-coded names.
> Things may have stabilised since then, but I wouldn't bet on it.
Would it make sense for someone who understands this thread to update
the devel FAQs? E.g., one of: