From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 10647 invoked by alias); 28 Feb 2011 09:26:24 -0000 Received: (qmail 10637 invoked by uid 22791); 28 Feb 2011 09:26:23 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from sibelius.xs4all.nl (HELO glazunov.sibelius.xs4all.nl) (83.163.83.176) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Mon, 28 Feb 2011 09:26:17 +0000 Received: from glazunov.sibelius.xs4all.nl (kettenis@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by glazunov.sibelius.xs4all.nl (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id p1S9Pfoo014420; Mon, 28 Feb 2011 10:25:41 +0100 (CET) Received: (from kettenis@localhost) by glazunov.sibelius.xs4all.nl (8.14.3/8.14.3/Submit) id p1S9PceP018704; Mon, 28 Feb 2011 10:25:38 +0100 (CET) Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2011 09:29:00 -0000 Message-Id: <201102280925.p1S9PceP018704@glazunov.sibelius.xs4all.nl> From: Mark Kettenis To: brobecker@adacore.com CC: jan.kratochvil@redhat.com, msnyder@vmware.com, gdb-patches@sourceware.org In-reply-to: <20110228073949.GF30306@adacore.com> (message from Joel Brobecker on Mon, 28 Feb 2011 11:39:49 +0400) Subject: Re: [RFC] Compile GDB with -Wshadow? (was: "Re: [rfa] function parameter shadowed by local variable in opencl-lang.c") References: <4D698B92.3070309@vmware.com> <4D698C33.9040101@vmware.com> <20110228045225.GC30306@adacore.com> <20110228045735.GD30306@adacore.com> <20110228050759.GA25029@host1.dyn.jankratochvil.net> <20110228073949.GF30306@adacore.com> Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2011-02/txt/msg00884.txt.bz2 > Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2011 11:39:49 +0400 > From: Joel Brobecker > > > That would be great but it produces now 627 errors, I am not going to fix > > them, they look each one needs a specific fix. > > :-(. Completely impractical at this stage. It's really surprising > that we would have so many errors of this kind... Well they're not errors per-se. Bad style perhaps, but that of course can be argued.