Ian Lance Taylor <ian@airs.com> writes:
> Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> writes:
>> BTW, how does that work exactly? I assume it can't be a macro ...
> It's a macro just like __FILE__ and __LINE__ are macros.
> gcc has supported __FUNCTION__ and __PRETTY_FUNCTION__ for a long time
> (the latter is the demangled version of the function name when using
> C++).
Now that I know the name, I can find it in the gcc docs, which clearly
explain that these names are not macros ;-). The preprocessor would
have a tough time making such a substitution.
However, if the C99 spec has such a concept, they didn't use that name
for it ...
regards, tom lane
