For both compilers __BASE_FILE__ gives the same result as __FILE__, which is the name of the file as specfied on the command line when invoking the compiler.
Furthermore, I use __FILE__ indirectly via assert(), which is scattered through driver code provided by the chip vendor. Therefore, __BASE_FILE__ is no option.
> However, this stackoverflow post (https:/ /stackoverflow. com/questions/ 8487986/ file-macro- shows-full- path) claims that it just gives the same result as __FILE__.
I can confirm this claim, at least for
- gcc (Debian 6.3.0-18) 6.3.0 20170516 6-branch revision 249437]
- arm-none-eabi-gcc (GNU Tools for ARM Embedded Processors 6-2017-q2-update) 6.3.1 20170620 (release) [ARM/embedded-
For both compilers __BASE_FILE__ gives the same result as __FILE__, which is the name of the file as specfied on the command line when invoking the compiler.
Furthermore, I use __FILE__ indirectly via assert(), which is scattered through driver code provided by the chip vendor. Therefore, __BASE_FILE__ is no option.