Re: [boost] Fwd: Changes to __PRETTY_FUNCTION__ in clang

Subject: Re: [boost] Fwd: Changes to __PRETTY_FUNCTION__ in clang
From: Andrey Semashev (andrey.semashev_at_[hidden])
Date: 2018-02-05 17:15:27

On 02/05/18 18:50, Mikhail Ramalho via Boost wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> I recently send an email to the clang mailing list, to change how clang
> prints __PRETTY_FUNCTION__ [0], and one person raised a question if it
> would break boost.
> 
> Honestly, I don't know boost's code and I could only find a few places
> where it's used, mainly for diagnostics, but also in CTTI and hanna; that's
> why I'm sending this email to ask for some help.
> 
> Does boost relies on the format of these macros? The main idea is to just
> change how templates are printed, from:
> 
> X<void>::X() [T = void]
> 
> to a gcc-like style:
> 
> X<T>::X() [with T = void]

__PRETTY_FUNCTION__ is used by BOOST_CURRENT_FUNCTION, which in turn may 
be used by Boost.Log to generate scope names. There is a parser for 
extracting function names from such generated scope names here:

https://github.com/boostorg/log/blob/develop/src/named_scope_format_parser.cpp

The parser is "best effort" and probably doesn't cover some cover cases 
like lambdas, but it used to work rather well with strings generated by 
gcc and MSVC. I don't think I tested it with clang, so I'm not sure how 
well it works with it now or if it will be broken by the change.