From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gdb-return-42360-listarch-gdb=sources.redhat.com@sourceware.org>
Received: (qmail 19520 invoked by alias); 17 Jul 2013 21:12:56 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gdb.sourceware.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gdb-subscribe@sourceware.org>
List-Archive: <http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb/>
List-Post: <mailto:gdb@sourceware.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gdb-help@sourceware.org>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender: gdb-owner@sourceware.org
Received: (qmail 19494 invoked by uid 89); 17 Jul 2013 21:12:55 -0000
X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-3.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KHOP_THREADED,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_YE,RDNS_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.1
Received: from Unknown (HELO mail-ie0-f177.google.com) (209.85.223.177)    by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.84/v0.84-167-ge50287c) with ESMTP; Wed, 17 Jul 2013 21:12:54 +0000
Received: by mail-ie0-f177.google.com with SMTP id aq17so5162044iec.22        for <gdb@sourceware.org>; Wed, 17 Jul 2013 14:12:47 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;        d=google.com; s=20120113;        h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to         :cc:content-type:x-gm-message-state;        bh=gO/+Hc1I8NkIskekj4rtFuc9Ocb/23V4zZnSAVtB0UY=;        b=GWFeo2voPt7WLvU5Lskc6yjvD96QH2GwlS9wq4HG768huBjosGvzUkAxzlmueLvI10         wMvRWJm9JS7TDwnkyVRUXE5yexH6Ns8pgeA2Qiy9XU9XtYvL4DJ59bAUdgWilYSmMIIK         MoexEgU1Cwumzo1YbJxoDffzOjkRx6ZBYy/9uHUbO4qMRlmcH6fR1UgJmbeaUW+3lYT5         aq4qCX9kA3W1+qYwADg4K0x3pR7ZNA7U6iK/sxoaSkWAosCCjG9hWiuUperZQPskkemA         XZCKdwEd9y9Lesfbulcd+RIxy4fDZv4FbVoZRW9E0ccSSwi+nXXLK+AS93pUszFvmHdW         zKuA==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.50.29.9 with SMTP id f9mr11295237igh.11.1374095567556; Wed, 17 Jul 2013 14:12:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.64.62.67 with HTTP; Wed, 17 Jul 2013 14:12:47 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <201307172048.r6HKmZhD018958@glazunov.sibelius.xs4all.nl>
References: <87wqoqi5yf.fsf@fleche.redhat.com>	<201307162122.r6GLMlMx012078@glazunov.sibelius.xs4all.nl>	<CADPb22QkGUQ8v_PZBKW23xE71xwtv3NNhEkb5Kwy13+E5GRjAQ@mail.gmail.com>	<201307172048.r6HKmZhD018958@glazunov.sibelius.xs4all.nl>
Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2013 21:12:00 -0000
Message-ID: <CADPb22T_1an4N4iu7M7z2Oh_NXtig5Ut73FL7k7sjZO-GK756w@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: C99
From: Doug Evans <dje@google.com>
To: Mark Kettenis <mark.kettenis@xs4all.nl>
Cc: Tom Tromey <tromey@redhat.com>, gdb <gdb@sourceware.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQlbHST/3rc/xkYJ1/S3cwvDYuv+sDgmO/FTGRIC1K609OBegXmJq8pV702PGGIkWywomtc+TTJiLhvchg51fTD70wDdvb3LvygtbIqwZLSuN1JxPhDOlrzRHVBiJtaN7sfF5Kl6UjEHaEAiSxQDONBFx4DjYxHNau6lFoisgeIJ+W3OsmJWtAtxNn6+ceQw7x5s4Zir
X-SW-Source: 2013-07/txt/msg00060.txt.bz2

On Wed, Jul 17, 2013 at 1:48 PM, Mark Kettenis <mark.kettenis@xs4all.nl> wrote:
>> > However, a more important C99 "misfeature" that affects the coding
>> > standard is the possibility to declare varaibles anywhere in the code.
>> > We should not allow this, except for declaring loop variables in a
>> > for() statement.
>>
>> Can you elaborate?
>
> Code like this:
>
> int
> foobar(char *foo, int bar)
> {
>         sprintf(foo, "%d", bar)
>         int j = strlen(foo);
>         return j;
> }
>
> is bad if you're trained to look for variable declerations at the
> start of a block.  C90 doesn't allow this; C99 changed that.  Most
> hardcore C programmers consider this a bad decision by the standard
> committe.  Most people do accept the following though:
>
> int
> foobar(int bar)
> {
>     int sum = 0;
>
>     for (int i = 0; i < bar; i++)
>         sum += i;
>
>
>     return sum;
> }

Yeah, except I'm not seeing why it's a problem.  Why is it a bad
decision?  What class of bugs does it cause?
I can see that it makes it easier to find all the locals, but I'm more
for declaring/initializing them close to their use.