From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 31630 invoked by alias); 22 Jun 2012 16:05:23 -0000 Received: (qmail 31611 invoked by uid 22791); 22 Jun 2012 16:05:20 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-6.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KHOP_RCVD_UNTRUST,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_W,SPF_HELO_PASS,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Fri, 22 Jun 2012 16:04:48 +0000 Received: from int-mx12.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx12.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.25]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id q5MG4fo3002435 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Fri, 22 Jun 2012 12:04:42 -0400 Received: from barimba (ovpn01.gateway.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.9.1]) by int-mx12.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id q5MG4dVL007036 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Fri, 22 Jun 2012 12:04:40 -0400 From: Tom Tromey To: Mark Kettenis Cc: dje@google.com, pierre.muller@ics-cnrs.unistra.fr, gdb-patches@sourceware.org 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> Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2012 16:05:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <201205282043.q4SKhksB010254@glazunov.sibelius.xs4all.nl> (Mark Kettenis's message of "Mon, 28 May 2012 22:43:46 +0200 (CEST)") Message-ID: <87ipejib8o.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.1 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain 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/msg00707.txt.bz2 >>>>> "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. Tom