enami tsugutomo <enami@but-b.or.jp> writes:

> > > It is still wrong. __FUNCTION__ is special to gcc! You have to name
> > > the thing something else.
> > 
> > In that case, you might want to consider putting something like the
> > __assert_function__ definition from <assert.h> into <sys/cdefs.h>
> > under an appropriate name, and update KNF accordingly.
> 
> Do you mean we should invent some new symbol like __nb_function__ and
> encourage developer to use it (instead of a change like below)?

I think your change is functionally just fine. However, for clarity
and consistency with the leading comment I'd suggest rearranging the
logic a bit, like

  #if !C99
  #if GCC2.6
  #elif GCC2.4
  #else
  #endif
  #endif /* !C99 */

This should make it clear that a C99 feature is to be provided.


Thanks,
- Klaus