On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 5:15 PM, Lawrence Crowl <cr...@google.com> wrote: > 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.
Yes, that is an issue indeed; maybe except for __func__. > >> 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. > I am leaving that question to you guys :-) -- Gaby
