[FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH] avfilter/formats: fix wrong function name in error message

[Jun Zhao]

On 2017/12/5 17:25, Hendrik Leppkes wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 5, 2017 at 6:42 AM, Jun Zhao <mypopydev at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> On 2017/12/5 2:32, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
>>> On Mon, Dec 04, 2017 at 11:07:11AM +0100, Hendrik Leppkes wrote:
>>>> On Mon, Dec 4, 2017 at 10:53 AM, Moritz Barsnick <barsnick at gmx.net> wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, Dec 04, 2017 at 13:02:20 +0800, Jun Zhao wrote:
>>>>>> Use perdefined micro __FUNCTION__ rather than hard coding function name
>>>>>> to fix wrong function name in error message.
>>>>> AFAICT, "__FUNCTION__" is a C99 feature and thereby not supported by
>>>>> ffmpeg style. Or should it be? (It might be "supported by all compilers
>>>>> we care about".)
>>>>>
>>>>> http://ffmpeg.org/developer.html#C-language-features
>>>>>
>>>> __FUNCTION__ is not C99, its a compiler extension (which is understood
>>>> by GCC and some other compilers). __func__ is the C99 keyword.
>>>> Its likely that not all compilers we currently support would have
>>>> __func__, if they all have __FUNCTION__ however I cannot tell.
>>> There are some matches for __FUNCTION__ in git, so i wonder if all
>>> compilers we support do support it
>> So now we have 2 option:
>>
>> 1). Find a ways to get the current function on different platforms in
>> C90,
>> https://stackoverflow.com/questions/7008485/func-or-function-or-manual-const-char-id
>> have some information for this way. （lot of #if defined ）
>> 2). Just remove __FUNCTION__ from the code. Total 5 __FUNCTION__ in
>> source code when grep the code.
>>
>> Personally, I prefer option 2 than option 1， any comments?
>
> If __FUNCTION__ is already in use right now (and hence supported by
> all compilers we have), it should be fine to use it again, so no need
> for complex ifdefs, I would think.
> In fact I just checked, and its in use in a key part in avformat, not
> even an optional module, so any compiler not supporting it would
> already fail building it now.
>
> - Hendrik
I agree, so we need to wait more comments for this ?
> _______________________________________________
> ffmpeg-devel mailing list
> ffmpeg-devel at ffmpeg.org
> http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel