From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 26039 invoked by alias); 10 May 2006 14:44:03 -0000 Received: (qmail 25356 invoked by uid 48); 10 May 2006 14:43:49 -0000 Date: Wed, 10 May 2006 14:44:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20060510144349.25355.qmail@sourceware.org> X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC References: Subject: [Bug middle-end/27528] compiling linux kernels 2.6.16.14/15 2.6.17-rc3 on powerpc (7450) get error on long exixting code In-Reply-To: Reply-To: gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org From: "malitzke at metronets dot com" Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org X-SW-Source: 2006-05/txt/msg00988.txt.bz2 List-Id: ------- Comment #5 from malitzke at metronets dot com 2006-05-10 14:43 ------- To A Pinski While I am _not_ a C lawyer, the following seems pertinent: 1 __FUNCTION__ is _not_ a predefined macro. However __func__ a predefined identifier and I will take this up with the kernel people. However, even changing__FUNCTION__ to __func__ still produces an error. Let the language lawyer sort this out. 2 Taking __FUNCTION__ entirely out of the original Macro Definition and using all of the kernel paraphernalia produces valid code. Out of that context I can not get even __FILE__ to work properly; only __line__ 3 Your "Hi" misses the point because it is certainly not a predefined macro and not even a predefined identifier. Therefore the comparison seems invalid to me. I am reopening this because I believe that the raised by "__func__" should be addressed. Also it is not the first time that the kernel people found ways to get GCC closer to the standards. -- malitzke at metronets dot com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |dje at gcc dot gnu dot org Status|RESOLVED |UNCONFIRMED Resolution|INVALID | http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27528