This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: Notes on -Wshadow patches
- From: Andrey Smirnov <andrew dot smirnov at gmail dot com>
- To: Joel Brobecker <brobecker at adacore dot com>
- Cc: gdb-patches <gdb-patches at sourceware dot org>, eliz at gnu dot org, mark dot kettenis at xs4all dot nl, tromey at redhat dot com
- Date: Mon, 28 Nov 2011 03:17:22 +0600
- Subject: Re: Notes on -Wshadow patches
- References: <firstname.lastname@example.org> <20111127175910.GD24943@adacore.com>
On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 12:59 AM, Joel Brobecker <email@example.com> wrote:
>> I finally finished squashing and reordering patches so here are some
>> notes, before I start sending them.
> It's really great that you've done all this work of giving us a better
> overview of where the various problems lie. ?It feel a little bad asking
> you for more work,
Well if it has to be done than it has to be done. I started the whole
-Wshadow revolution, I hope I'll be the one finishing it. Besides
there's also a chance of guilt-tripping you into accepting -Wshadow by
> but on the othe hand, it would be nice if you said
> for each future patch what other entity causes the collision you're
> trying to fix.
The ones that related to collisions with definitions in platform
provided *.h, in other words all non MISC commits, they are grouped
and tagged and will have it(tag) in a message subject, there are 90 of
those plus there are 34 previously sent patches so I think we have
enough to deal with, for now. For all MISC commits, I'll probably add a
short description in commit message later.
> I presume you already know, and that'll make our job
> reviewing your changes a little faster.
There are still 195 of them, so oftentimes, I just don't remeber. I have
all the data on which type TYP1..TYP4, BWDH, ALBW, they belong, but the
exact reason of a clash for MISC commits, no, I don't. I guess I'll
remember for some and the others I'll revert and hope gcc will give me
clear enough message.