From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 5105 invoked by alias); 24 Nov 2011 22:01:25 -0000 Received: (qmail 5085 invoked by uid 22791); 24 Nov 2011 22:01:20 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from rock.gnat.com (HELO rock.gnat.com) (205.232.38.15) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Thu, 24 Nov 2011 22:01:05 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by filtered-rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 775CD2BB51F; Thu, 24 Nov 2011 17:01:04 -0500 (EST) Received: from rock.gnat.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (rock.gnat.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id IUFxq+aBaIty; Thu, 24 Nov 2011 17:01:04 -0500 (EST) Received: from joel.gnat.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 15F262BB51E; Thu, 24 Nov 2011 17:01:04 -0500 (EST) Received: by joel.gnat.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id C2B2A145615; Thu, 24 Nov 2011 17:00:57 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 24 Nov 2011 22:01:00 -0000 From: Joel Brobecker To: Andrey Smirnov Cc: Mark Kettenis , gdb-patches Subject: Re: [PATCH 18/348] Fix -Wsahdow warnings Message-ID: <20111124220057.GU13809@adacore.com> References: <201111231640.pANGefc4031803@d06av02.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com> <201111231820.40486.pedro@codesourcery.com> <201111232023.pANKNcLf022983@glazunov.sibelius.xs4all.nl> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) 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: 2011-11/txt/msg00689.txt.bz2 Andrey, I understand your fustration towards the tone of some of the messages. Hopefully things will be better from now on. And I agree that not enabling -Wshadow by default will let the number of such conflict increase again over time. But at the same time, now that I am seeing the changes that are required to fix these, I am not very happy either. I mean, I understand that "index" might be part of a system's include. But "block_found" (or was it "found_block") seems quite surprising. Add the fact that includes and compiler vary from system to system, and we're not sure that once clean on one machine, it'll be clean everywhere else. All of this to fix warnings that, as far as I could tell for the most part, did not indicate an actual bug in the code. This is why I am left wondering (meaning I haven't decided yet) whether the idea of enabling -Wshadow was such a good idea after all. I know that looking at the warnings allowed you to spot some areas where there definitely is a mistake, and so that's useful. I'm not disputing that. But I'm not convinced by a good number of the patches I've seen, and I still haven't decided whether to accept the situation and approve them, or not. For that, I asked everyone else' opinion. -- Joel