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: