From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-return-200178-listarch-gcc=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 61106 invoked by alias); 18 Sep 2019 13:39:05 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gcc.gcc.gnu.org>
List-Archive: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/>
Sender: gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org
Received: (qmail 61096 invoked by uid 89); 18 Sep 2019 13:39:04 -0000
Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none
X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-5.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 spammy=HX-Languages-Length:737, H*f:sk:AM6PR10, H*i:sk:AM6PR10, quality
X-HELO: mx1.suse.de
Received: from mx2.suse.de (HELO mx1.suse.de) (195.135.220.15) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Wed, 18 Sep 2019 13:39:03 +0000
Received: from relay2.suse.de (unknown [195.135.220.254])	by mx1.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id E773EB697;	Wed, 18 Sep 2019 13:39:01 +0000 (UTC)
Subject: Re: Adding -Wshadow=local to gcc build rules
To: Bernd Edlinger <bernd.edlinger@hotmail.de>, "gcc@gcc.gnu.org" <gcc@gcc.gnu.org>
References: <AM6PR10MB256682838C777B5C8828C4BEE48E0@AM6PR10MB2566.EURPRD10.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM>
From: =?UTF-8?Q?Martin_Li=c5=a1ka?= <mliska@suse.cz>
Message-ID: <625f6d34-4dbc-5492-53c7-a7706f4dd23f@suse.cz>
Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2019 13:39:00 -0000
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <AM6PR10MB256682838C777B5C8828C4BEE48E0@AM6PR10MB2566.EURPRD10.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-IsSubscribed: yes
X-SW-Source: 2019-09/txt/msg00130.txt.bz2

On 9/18/19 3:08 PM, Bernd Edlinger wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> I'm currently trying to add -Wshadow=local to the gcc build rules.
> I started with -Wshadow, but gave up that idea immediately.
> 
> As you could expect the current code base has plenty of shadowed
> local variables.  Most are trivial to resolve, some are less trivial.
> I am not finished yet, but it is clear that it will be a rather big
> patch.
> 
> I would like to ask you if you agree that would be a desirable step,
> in improving code quality in the gcc tree.
> 
> 
> Thanks
> Bernd.
> 

Hello.

I did the very same for godot project some time ago:
https://github.com/godotengine/godot/pull/25853

I fully support such a patch.
Martin