Обсуждение: pgsql: Rely on __func__ being supported
Rely on __func__ being supported Previously we fell back to __FUNCTION__ and then NULL. As __func__ is in C99 that shouldn't be necessary anymore. Solution.pm defined HAVE_FUNCNAME__FUNCTION instead of HAVE_FUNCNAME__FUNC (originating in 4164e6636e2), as at some point in the past MSVC only supported __FUNCTION__. Our minimum version supports __func__. Reviewed-By: Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@gmail.com> Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/20220807012914.ydz73yte6j3coulo@awork3.anarazel.de Branch ------ master Details ------- https://git.postgresql.org/pg/commitdiff/320f92b744b44f961e5d56f5f21de003e8027a7f Modified Files -------------- config/c-compiler.m4 | 26 ----------------- configure | 61 --------------------------------------- configure.ac | 1 - src/backend/storage/lmgr/s_lock.c | 2 +- src/include/c.h | 11 ------- src/include/pg_config.h.in | 6 ---- src/include/storage/s_lock.h | 4 +-- src/include/utils/elog.h | 4 +-- src/tools/msvc/Solution.pm | 2 -- 9 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 112 deletions(-)
On 2022-Aug-07, Andres Freund wrote: > Rely on __func__ being supported > > Previously we fell back to __FUNCTION__ and then NULL. As __func__ is in C99 > that shouldn't be necessary anymore. > > Solution.pm defined HAVE_FUNCNAME__FUNCTION instead of > HAVE_FUNCNAME__FUNC (originating in 4164e6636e2), as at some point in the past > MSVC only supported __FUNCTION__. Our minimum version supports __func__. I'd rather we keep PG_FUNCNAME_MACRO defined to __func__ ... it costs us nothing. Would anybody oppose that? -- Álvaro Herrera Breisgau, Deutschland — https://www.EnterpriseDB.com/
Вложения
Hi, On 2022-08-07 19:40:14 +0200, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > I'd rather we keep PG_FUNCNAME_MACRO defined to __func__ ... it costs us > nothing. Would anybody oppose that? I'm fine with re-adding the macro, as long as we don't re-add in-tree users. Greetings, Andres Freund
Hello On 2022-Aug-07, Andres Freund wrote: > On 2022-08-07 19:40:14 +0200, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > > I'd rather we keep PG_FUNCNAME_MACRO defined to __func__ ... it costs us > > nothing. Would anybody oppose that? > > I'm fine with re-adding the macro, as long as we don't re-add in-tree users. After further thinking, I conclude there's no need for this. It's quite easy to add a "#ifndef PG_FUNCNAME_MACRO" stanza in third-party code if needed, and just rely on __func__ otherwise. Thanks -- Álvaro Herrera 48°01'N 7°57'E — https://www.EnterpriseDB.com/