On 8/15/12, Gabriel Dos Reis <g...@integrable-solutions.net> wrote: > On Aug 15, 2012 Richard Guenther <rguent...@suse.de> wrote: > > On Wed, 15 Aug 2012, Michael Matz wrote: > > > On Wed, 15 Aug 2012, Richard Guenther wrote: > > > > Prototype below - fire away on bikeshedding names. > > > Make it mirror the preprocessor names that people are used to, > > > and do away with the _loc_: __builtin_FILE, __builtin_FUNCTION, > > > __builtin_LINE. > > > > Hm, well. The following includes documentation and the old > > new names, __builtin_file_location, etc. > > This looks good too me. > > A few points to consider: > > * relation of __builtin_function_location to C99 (and C++11) > __func__ > > * Do we want to update libcpp to systematically expand > __FILE__ to __builtin_file_location, etc?
Do you mean just within gcc sources, or in general? I think the latter would fail compatibility tests. > It general, it might be good to avoid too many ways of spelling > the same thing. While I'm not excited by the name, __builtin_lazy_FILE has the virtue of being clear in the lazy binding of the name. -- Lawrence Crowl
