From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gdb-patches-return-85551-listarch-gdb-patches=sources.redhat.com@sourceware.org>
Received: (qmail 32206 invoked by alias); 27 Nov 2011 13:53:35 -0000
Received: (qmail 32197 invoked by uid 22791); 27 Nov 2011 13:53:34 -0000
X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.6 required=5.0	tests=AWL,BAYES_00,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; Sun, 27 Nov 2011 13:53:17 +0000
Received: from glazunov.sibelius.xs4all.nl (kettenis@localhost [127.0.0.1])	by glazunov.sibelius.xs4all.nl (8.14.5/8.14.3) with ESMTP id pARDqlPb021483;	Sun, 27 Nov 2011 14:52:47 +0100 (CET)
Received: (from kettenis@localhost)	by glazunov.sibelius.xs4all.nl (8.14.5/8.14.3/Submit) id pARDqjCg025404;	Sun, 27 Nov 2011 14:52:45 +0100 (CET)
Date: Sun, 27 Nov 2011 13:53:00 -0000
Message-Id: <201111271352.pARDqjCg025404@glazunov.sibelius.xs4all.nl>
From: Mark Kettenis <mark.kettenis@xs4all.nl>
To: eliz@gnu.org
CC: brobecker@adacore.com, andrew.smirnov@gmail.com,        gdb-patches@sourceware.org
In-reply-to: <83aa7k83p0.fsf@gnu.org> (message from Eli Zaretskii on Fri, 25	Nov 2011 20:19:55 +0200)
Subject: Re: [PATCH 18/348] Fix -Wsahdow warnings
References: <201111231640.pANGefc4031803@d06av02.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com> <201111231820.40486.pedro@codesourcery.com> <201111232023.pANKNcLf022983@glazunov.sibelius.xs4all.nl> <CAHQ1cqHjSYQL75PS8xqEASXXnh5jzMGH+JX7ti_9SKZ+5UOtKA@mail.gmail.com> <20111124220057.GU13809@adacore.com> <83hb1s8l5c.fsf@gnu.org> <201111251511.pAPFBBkP007292@glazunov.sibelius.xs4all.nl> <83ehww8b1t.fsf@gnu.org> <201111251626.pAPGQ3rN016558@glazunov.sibelius.xs4all.nl> <83aa7k83p0.fsf@gnu.org>
Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gdb-patches.sourceware.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gdb-patches-subscribe@sourceware.org>
List-Archive: <http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/>
List-Post: <mailto:gdb-patches@sourceware.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org
X-SW-Source: 2011-11/txt/msg00728.txt.bz2

> Date: Fri, 25 Nov 2011 20:19:55 +0200
> From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>
> 
> > Date: Fri, 25 Nov 2011 17:26:04 +0100 (CET)
> > From: Mark Kettenis <mark.kettenis@xs4all.nl>
> > CC: brobecker@adacore.com, andrew.smirnov@gmail.com,
> >         gdb-patches@sourceware.org
> > 
> > Since there is absolutely no problem with a local variable that has
> > the same name as a library function, this is bad.
> 
> You are, in effect, saying that the wisdom of coding "down the middle
> of a programming language" is wrong.  We will have to disagree on
> that, sorry.  FWIW, I don't think a large project should live
> dangerously just because some versions of some compiler will flag
> these clashes even without -Wshadow.

I think you're still missing my point.

What I'm saying is that a local variable shadowing a function is never
a problem.  It would only be a problem if inside the function that has
the local variable, you'd (accidentally) try to invoke the function.
That's why I came up with the example:

void foo(void);

void
bar(void)
{
	int foo;

	foo();
}

where the function foo() is being called when it is being shadowed by
a local variable.  This won't compile on *any* C compiler, simply
because it isn't legal C.