From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 5595 invoked by alias); 2 Nov 2011 07:57:53 -0000 Received: (qmail 5581 invoked by uid 22791); 2 Nov 2011 07:57:51 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.6 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_05,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FROM,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mail-iy0-f169.google.com (HELO mail-iy0-f169.google.com) (209.85.210.169) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Wed, 02 Nov 2011 07:57:37 +0000 Received: by iagf6 with SMTP id f6so12170555iag.0 for ; Wed, 02 Nov 2011 00:57:36 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.50.169.97 with SMTP id ad1mr2084274igc.35.1320220656740; Wed, 02 Nov 2011 00:57:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.50.189.227 with HTTP; Wed, 2 Nov 2011 00:57:36 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Wed, 02 Nov 2011 07:57:00 -0000 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/17] Enable building with -Wshadow From: Andrey Smirnov To: Tom Tromey Cc: gdb-patches Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 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: 2011-11/txt/msg00037.txt.bz2 > I don't think we want -ansi, though I am not sure. > I think it would be good to separate out these patches so we can see. > I myself would rather had -std=c99 or even -std=gnu99, for that matter, but http://sourceware.org/gdb/current/onlinedocs/gdbint/Coding-Standards.html#Coding-Standards said "ISO C90" and "ISO C90" it was. Anyway, as far as I can recall, there were no fixes to gdb directories related to that flag and the only two files required fixing were libiberty/_doprnt.c and bfd/peXXigen.c > However -- I think the best overall approach would be to separate > "pretty obvious" patches from ones that are not as obvious. I know they > are all just renamings, but I think some forms of shadowing (like purely > within a single function) are much easier to review than others. Also I > expect some may be contentious, perhaps even the whole project will be. Oh, boy, this is going to be one hell of a "git rebase --interactive"! Well it looks like it is going to the "Santa Barbara" of patches, nonetheless, OK, I'll regroup them by function and complexity, but I'll group the ones fixing clashes with stdlib names, by function or variable name to reduce number of patches, though. > > Andrey> - Does the part of MAINTAINERS file about patches to libiberty, > Andrey> libdecnumber and intl needing to be sent to GCC still holds true or > Andrey> should I send them to this list? Bfd and binutils? > > Yes, libdecnumber and libiberty are canonically maintained in GCC. > I don't know if they want -Wshadow or not. > > BFD patches should go to binutils. I also don't know if they want -Wshadow. > Well, since contributing to them require copyright assignment too, I'll contact them after it is done. P.S. I stand corrected there was one change in gdb tree in gdb/gdbserver/tracepoint.c regarding "-ansi" option, but that is all, and I'll be separating it to standalone patch anyway.