From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 13001 invoked by alias); 28 Feb 2011 18:15:05 -0000 Received: (qmail 12993 invoked by uid 22791); 28 Feb 2011 18:15:04 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-5.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from smtp-outbound-1.vmware.com (HELO smtp-outbound-1.vmware.com) (65.115.85.69) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Mon, 28 Feb 2011 18:14:59 +0000 Received: from mailhost2.vmware.com (mailhost2.vmware.com [10.16.67.167]) by smtp-outbound-1.vmware.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5E9731301E; Mon, 28 Feb 2011 10:14:58 -0800 (PST) Received: from msnyder-server.eng.vmware.com (promd-2s-dhcp138.eng.vmware.com [10.20.124.138]) by mailhost2.vmware.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5704E8E717; Mon, 28 Feb 2011 10:14:58 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <4D6BE621.7030400@vmware.com> Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2011 18:15:00 -0000 From: Michael Snyder User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.24 (X11/20101201) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Mark Kettenis CC: "brobecker@adacore.com" , "jan.kratochvil@redhat.com" , "gdb-patches@sourceware.org" Subject: Re: [RFC] Compile GDB with -Wshadow? 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> <201102280925.p1S9PceP018704@glazunov.sibelius.xs4all.nl> In-Reply-To: <201102280925.p1S9PceP018704@glazunov.sibelius.xs4all.nl> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-IsSubscribed: yes 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/msg00923.txt.bz2 Mark Kettenis wrote: >> 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. The ones I pointed out were all shadowing of a parameter. These are probably shadowing of an outer scope. As you say, not really errors in either case, but surely a potential source of confusion for maintainers.