From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 21640 invoked by alias); 26 Jun 2012 11:51:04 -0000 Received: (qmail 21603 invoked by uid 22791); 26 Jun 2012 11:51:03 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.9 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KHOP_THREADED,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; Tue, 26 Jun 2012 11:50:51 +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 q5QBoiOm008476; Tue, 26 Jun 2012 13:50:44 +0200 (CEST) Received: (from kettenis@localhost) by glazunov.sibelius.xs4all.nl (8.14.5/8.14.3/Submit) id q5QBog6I024561; Tue, 26 Jun 2012 13:50:42 +0200 (CEST) Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2012 11:51:00 -0000 Message-Id: <201206261150.q5QBog6I024561@glazunov.sibelius.xs4all.nl> From: Mark Kettenis To: tromey@redhat.com CC: mark.kettenis@xs4all.nl, dje@google.com, pierre.muller@ics-cnrs.unistra.fr, gdb-patches@sourceware.org In-reply-to: <87ipejib8o.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> (message from Tom Tromey on Fri, 22 Jun 2012 10:04:39 -0600) Subject: Re: New ARI warning Wed May 23 01:55:03 UTC 2012 References: <20120523015503.GA25312@sourceware.org> <4fbc9d77.0853b40a.641e.ffff90dbSMTPIN_ADDED@mx.google.com> <87bold8l4d.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> <201205282043.q4SKhksB010254@glazunov.sibelius.xs4all.nl> <87ipejib8o.fsf@fleche.redhat.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: 2012-06/txt/msg00796.txt.bz2 > From: Tom Tromey > 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 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".