Proposal: Unify printing the function name in panic messages()

[Andriy Gapon]

on 09/02/2013 11:28 Christoph Mallon said the following:
> On 09.02.2013 10:08, Andriy Gapon wrote:
>> In any case, you just search the code for the message and that's it.
> 
> Often the messages contains parameters (%d, %s, ...) or are split into multiple lines to appease the ancient 80 columns god.
> These make it harder to grep.
> Having the /right/ name makes it easier to get to the right place.

Having right tools for the search does that too.
And doesn't require any code churn.

>> If this is a solution in search of a problem, then I don't like it, because it
> 
> The two problems this change solves are very simple:
> - There are needlessly about a dozen different ways used to add the function name into the panic message.
>   This change unifies it.
> - All too often the name is wrong.
>   This change gets it right every time without any manual and error-prone effort of somebody, who adds a use of PANIC().

There is no need to have a function name in panic message.
If it's present and if it's incorrect - these are very minor details.
We are not talking about new code that prevents real bugs.

>> requires massive, if mostly mechanical, changes throughout the code.
> 
> I do not understand, what the problem is.
> There are bugs and cumbersome code.
> This simple changes solves it.

You conveniently omitted some questions of mine.
I'll reproduce them:
Well, have you experienced any problems with debugging due to those
(absent/misleading) function names?  Or do you see many reports about such problems?

So I conclude that this is indeed a solution in search of a problem.
And that's exactly why i don't like it:
- a lot of lines changed for no good reason
- code looks uglier / more obfuscated due to macro(s)
- no clear benefit, because there is no clear problem that needs solving

-- 
Andriy Gapon