From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 20159 invoked by alias); 16 Feb 2005 13:35:28 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 20140 invoked by alias); 16 Feb 2005 13:35:24 -0000 Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2005 18:04:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20050216133524.20139.qmail@sourceware.org> From: "joseph at codesourcery dot com" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org In-Reply-To: <20050216043359.19994.cyeoh@samba.org> References: <20050216043359.19994.cyeoh@samba.org> Reply-To: gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug c/19994] warn on parameter name mismatch X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-SW-Source: 2005-02/txt/msg01771.txt.bz2 List-Id: ------- Additional Comments From joseph at codesourcery dot com 2005-02-16 13:35 ------- Subject: Re: warn on parameter name mismatch On Wed, 16 Feb 2005, cyeoh at samba dot org wrote: > I think it would be fairly unusual that you would want the prototype parameter > names to not match the definition. It wouldn't have to warn if the parameter > names in the prototype were deliberately omitted. I think it's quite usual for a header to use a parameter name in a reserved namespace (whether the implementation namespace as in glibc headers, or beginning with a prefix reserved by a library). In such a case, the library implementation is likely to use a shorter more convenient name for the parameter. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19994