Re: New ARI warning Wed May 23 01:55:03 UTC 2012

[Mark Kettenis <mark.kettenis@xs4all.nl>]

> From: Tom Tromey <tromey@redhat.com>
> Cc: dje@google.com, pierre.muller@ics-cnrs.unistra.fr,
>         gdb-patches@sourceware.org
> Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2012 10:04:39 -0600
> X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.68 on 10.5.11.25
> X-XS4ALL-DNSBL-Checked: mxdrop138.xs4all.nl checked 209.132.183.28 against DNS blacklists
> X-CNFS-Analysis: v=2.0 cv=BoYqN/r5 c=1 sm=0 a=EoCpGYUz4Hoh5VNdmhp8sg==:17
> 	a=nUfg596yZbcA:10 a=6S1mYhvI0JkA:10 a=K_0WnIvp2iAA:10
> 	a=pb-PBmHuEqsA:10 a=20KFwNOVAAAA:8 a=6Xxp_h8RXR2XXjevXgMA:9
> 	a=EoCpGYUz4Hoh5VNdmhp8sg==:117
> X-Virus-Scanned: by XS4ALL Virus Scanner
> X-XS4ALL-Spam-Score: -0.0 () SPF_HELO_PASS, SPF_PASS
> X-XS4ALL-Spam: NO
> Envelope-To: mark.kettenis@xs4all.nl
> 
> >>>>> "Mark" == Mark Kettenis <mark.kettenis@xs4all.nl> writes:
> 
> Mark> So I'd have no objection to requiring C99, except for one
> Mark> style-related issue.  I really, really hate mixing declarations with
> Mark> code (something that C99 started to allow).  So if we switch to
> Mark> requiring C99, I think we should add a rule to the coding standards
> Mark> that variables may only be declared at the start of a block.
> 
> If there is no warning for it, then uses will slip in.

Yes, but they already do.  All I want to make sure is that they are
"officially" considered bad style, that we try to keep an eye open for them
during patch review and that fixing them is "obviously correct".