X-Authentication-Warning: delorie.com: mail set sender to djgpp-workers-bounces using -f
Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2003 11:05:16 +0200 (EET)
From: Esa A E Peuha <peuha AT cc DOT helsinki DOT fi>
Sender: peuha AT sirppi DOT helsinki DOT fi
To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Subject: Re: C99 and assert
In-Reply-To: <3FC27F1A.61184929@phekda.freeserve.co.uk>
Message-ID: <Pine.OSF.4.58.0311251030350.13833@sirppi.helsinki.fi>
References: <Pine DOT OSF DOT 4 DOT 58 DOT 0311171215310 DOT 18135 AT sirppi DOT helsinki DOT fi>
 <3FC27F1A DOT 61184929 AT phekda DOT freeserve DOT co DOT uk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Reply-To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Errors-To: nobody AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To: listserv AT delorie DOT com
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, 24 Nov 2003, Richard Dawe wrote:

> I have one question: Which version of gcc was the first to support __func__?
> Does gcc 2.95.x support __func__? gcc 2.7.2.2?

The first version to support C99, I think.  That is irrelevant though,
because any version of gcc in C99 mode will have __func__, while any
version of gcc in strict C89 mode won't (or at least shouldn't).

The patch assumes that NULL is defined when assert is used in C89 mode.
That will probably be true, since it's pretty hard not to include any
header that defines NULL, but maybe it would be better to use 0 instead.
(I'm a bit paranoid about NULL versus 0, but in this case it may
actually be right to pass 0 as pointer argument.)

-- 
Esa Peuha
student of mathematics at the University of Helsinki
http://www.helsinki.fi/~peuha/