From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 29837 invoked by alias); 23 Nov 2011 04:46:30 -0000 Received: (qmail 29825 invoked by uid 22791); 23 Nov 2011 04:46:29 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.4 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,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, 23 Nov 2011 04:46:16 +0000 Received: by iaek3 with SMTP id k3so1545817iae.0 for ; Tue, 22 Nov 2011 20:46:15 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.231.29.137 with SMTP id q9mr6086000ibc.27.1322023575748; Tue, 22 Nov 2011 20:46:15 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.50.186.228 with HTTP; Tue, 22 Nov 2011 20:46:15 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <4ECC3FD2.1000309@earthlink.net> References: <87obw470hx.fsf@gmail.com> <4ECC3FD2.1000309@earthlink.net> Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2011 04:46:00 -0000 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH 35/358] Fix -Wsahdow warnings From: Andrey Smirnov To: Stan Shebs Cc: gdb-patches Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable 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/msg00610.txt.bz2 On Wed, Nov 23, 2011 at 7:35 AM, Stan Shebs wrote: > On 11/22/11 5:25 AM, Andrey Smirnov wrote: > [...] > > - =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 struct symtab_and_line sal; > + =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 struct symtab_and_line las; > > > While clever and amusing, this is probably a bad idea for the long run; > without any comment explaining it, some future hacker is really really go= ing > to want to change it back to "sal", and when enough time has passed, no o= ne > will remember why they should object. There are 358 patches and I assure you being clever and amusing did not come to my mid while I was renaming all conflicting variables. As to your objection: I thought the goal of the whole patchset is to add -Wshadow to default compiler flags, is it not? I case it is, than the future hacker will get a slap from compiler, for shadowing the previous definition of `sal'. And in case it isn't I have a very loud "Why?!" to shout at the universe. > =A0Better to use something dull and predictable like "sal2". Given the choice between `las' and `sal2' I have no preference either way, so I'll rename it. Andrey Smirnov