* [rfa] function parameter shadowed by local variable in opencl-lang.c
@ 2011-02-26 23:26 Michael Snyder
2011-02-26 23:36 ` Michael Snyder
0 siblings, 1 reply; 11+ messages in thread
From: Michael Snyder @ 2011-02-26 23:26 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gdb-patches, ken.werner
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 35 bytes --]
Probably this wasn't intentional?
[-- Attachment #2: shadow.txt --]
[-- Type: text/plain, Size: 848 bytes --]
2011-02-26 Michael Snyder <msnyder@vmware.com>
* opencl-lang.c (lval_func_check_synthetic_pointer): Local variable
shadows function parameter.
Index: opencl-lang.c
===================================================================
RCS file: /cvs/src/src/gdb/opencl-lang.c,v
retrieving revision 1.7
diff -u -p -u -p -r1.7 opencl-lang.c
--- opencl-lang.c 21 Feb 2011 15:53:10 -0000 1.7
+++ opencl-lang.c 26 Feb 2011 23:19:10 -0000
@@ -318,11 +318,11 @@ lval_func_check_synthetic_pointer (const
for (i = start; i < end; i++)
{
int startoffset = (i == start) ? startrest : 0;
- int length = (i == end) ? endrest : elsize;
+ int length2 = (i == end) ? endrest : elsize;
if (!value_bits_synthetic_pointer (c->val,
c->indices[i] * elsize + startoffset,
- length))
+ length2))
return 0;
}
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* Re: [rfa] function parameter shadowed by local variable in opencl-lang.c
2011-02-26 23:26 [rfa] function parameter shadowed by local variable in opencl-lang.c Michael Snyder
@ 2011-02-26 23:36 ` Michael Snyder
2011-02-28 4:57 ` Joel Brobecker
0 siblings, 1 reply; 11+ messages in thread
From: Michael Snyder @ 2011-02-26 23:36 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gdb-patches, ken.werner
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 106 bytes --]
Michael Snyder wrote:
> Probably this wasn't intentional?
>
Oops, another instance of the same thing:
[-- Attachment #2: shadow2.txt --]
[-- Type: text/plain, Size: 1096 bytes --]
Index: opencl-lang.c
===================================================================
RCS file: /cvs/src/src/gdb/opencl-lang.c,v
retrieving revision 1.7
diff -u -p -u -p -r1.7 opencl-lang.c
--- opencl-lang.c 21 Feb 2011 15:53:10 -0000 1.7
+++ opencl-lang.c 26 Feb 2011 23:26:07 -0000
@@ -264,10 +264,10 @@ lval_func_check_validity (const struct v
for (i = start; i < end; i++)
{
int startoffset = (i == start) ? startrest : 0;
- int length = (i == end) ? endrest : elsize;
+ int length2 = (i == end) ? endrest : elsize;
if (!value_bits_valid (c->val, c->indices[i] * elsize + startoffset,
- length))
+ length2))
return 0;
}
@@ -318,11 +318,11 @@ lval_func_check_synthetic_pointer (const
for (i = start; i < end; i++)
{
int startoffset = (i == start) ? startrest : 0;
- int length = (i == end) ? endrest : elsize;
+ int length2 = (i == end) ? endrest : elsize;
if (!value_bits_synthetic_pointer (c->val,
c->indices[i] * elsize + startoffset,
- length))
+ length2))
return 0;
}
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* Re: [rfa] function parameter shadowed by local variable in opencl-lang.c
2011-02-26 23:36 ` Michael Snyder
@ 2011-02-28 4:57 ` Joel Brobecker
2011-02-28 5:01 ` [RFC] Compile GDB with -Wshadow? (was: "Re: [rfa] function parameter shadowed by local variable in opencl-lang.c") Joel Brobecker
2011-02-28 15:23 ` [rfa] function parameter shadowed by local variable in opencl-lang.c Ulrich Weigand
0 siblings, 2 replies; 11+ messages in thread
From: Joel Brobecker @ 2011-02-28 4:57 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Michael Snyder; +Cc: gdb-patches, ken.werner
> >Probably this wasn't intentional?
> >
>
> Oops, another instance of the same thing:
I wish the compiler would warn us about things like this... The patch
looks correct to me, but I will let Ken and Ulrich take a look. Perhaps
they'll be able to suggest a more specific name than `length2' ;-).
--
Joel
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* [RFC] Compile GDB with -Wshadow? (was: "Re: [rfa] function parameter shadowed by local variable in opencl-lang.c")
2011-02-28 4:57 ` Joel Brobecker
@ 2011-02-28 5:01 ` Joel Brobecker
2011-02-28 5:39 ` Jan Kratochvil
2011-02-28 15:48 ` Tom Tromey
2011-02-28 15:23 ` [rfa] function parameter shadowed by local variable in opencl-lang.c Ulrich Weigand
1 sibling, 2 replies; 11+ messages in thread
From: Joel Brobecker @ 2011-02-28 5:01 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Michael Snyder; +Cc: gdb-patches
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 388 bytes --]
> I wish the compiler would warn us about things like this... The patch
> looks correct to me, but I will let Ken and Ulrich take a look. Perhaps
> they'll be able to suggest a more specific name than `length2' ;-).
Howzabout we add -Wshadow to the list of warning compiler switches
for GCC? Something like this (untested for now, just to give an idea
for this discussion)...
--
Joel
[-- Attachment #2: wshadow.diff --]
[-- Type: text/x-diff, Size: 496 bytes --]
diff --git a/gdb/configure.ac b/gdb/configure.ac
index f31ef2a..ea0cda9 100644
--- a/gdb/configure.ac
+++ b/gdb/configure.ac
@@ -1753,7 +1753,7 @@ fi
build_warnings="-Wall -Wdeclaration-after-statement -Wpointer-arith \
-Wformat-nonliteral -Wno-pointer-sign \
-Wno-unused -Wunused-value -Wunused-function \
--Wno-switch -Wno-char-subscripts"
+-Wno-switch -Wno-char-subscripts -Wshadow"
# Enable -Wno-format by default when using gcc on mingw since many
# GCC versions complain about %I64.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* Re: [RFC] Compile GDB with -Wshadow? (was: "Re: [rfa] function parameter shadowed by local variable in opencl-lang.c")
2011-02-28 5:01 ` [RFC] Compile GDB with -Wshadow? (was: "Re: [rfa] function parameter shadowed by local variable in opencl-lang.c") Joel Brobecker
@ 2011-02-28 5:39 ` Jan Kratochvil
2011-02-28 9:09 ` Joel Brobecker
2011-02-28 15:48 ` Tom Tromey
1 sibling, 1 reply; 11+ messages in thread
From: Jan Kratochvil @ 2011-02-28 5:39 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Joel Brobecker; +Cc: Michael Snyder, gdb-patches
On Mon, 28 Feb 2011 05:57:35 +0100, Joel Brobecker wrote:
> Howzabout we add -Wshadow to the list of warning compiler switches
> for GCC?
That would be great but it produces now 627 errors, I am not going to fix
them, they look each one needs a specific fix.
Thanks,
Jan
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* Re: [RFC] Compile GDB with -Wshadow? (was: "Re: [rfa] function parameter shadowed by local variable in opencl-lang.c")
2011-02-28 5:39 ` Jan Kratochvil
@ 2011-02-28 9:09 ` Joel Brobecker
2011-02-28 9:29 ` Mark Kettenis
0 siblings, 1 reply; 11+ messages in thread
From: Joel Brobecker @ 2011-02-28 9:09 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jan Kratochvil; +Cc: Michael Snyder, gdb-patches
> That would be great but it produces now 627 errors, I am not going to fix
> them, they look each one needs a specific fix.
:-(. Completely impractical at this stage. It's really surprising
that we would have so many errors of this kind...
--
Joel
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* Re: [RFC] Compile GDB with -Wshadow? (was: "Re: [rfa] function parameter shadowed by local variable in opencl-lang.c")
2011-02-28 9:09 ` Joel Brobecker
@ 2011-02-28 9:29 ` Mark Kettenis
2011-02-28 18:15 ` [RFC] Compile GDB with -Wshadow? Michael Snyder
0 siblings, 1 reply; 11+ messages in thread
From: Mark Kettenis @ 2011-02-28 9:29 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: brobecker; +Cc: jan.kratochvil, msnyder, gdb-patches
> Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2011 11:39:49 +0400
> From: Joel Brobecker <brobecker@adacore.com>
>
> > That would be great but it produces now 627 errors, I am not going to fix
> > them, they look each one needs a specific fix.
>
> :-(. Completely impractical at this stage. It's really surprising
> that we would have so many errors of this kind...
Well they're not errors per-se. Bad style perhaps, but that of course
can be argued.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* Re: [rfa] function parameter shadowed by local variable in opencl-lang.c
2011-02-28 4:57 ` Joel Brobecker
2011-02-28 5:01 ` [RFC] Compile GDB with -Wshadow? (was: "Re: [rfa] function parameter shadowed by local variable in opencl-lang.c") Joel Brobecker
@ 2011-02-28 15:23 ` Ulrich Weigand
2011-02-28 18:43 ` Michael Snyder
1 sibling, 1 reply; 11+ messages in thread
From: Ulrich Weigand @ 2011-02-28 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Joel Brobecker; +Cc: Michael Snyder, gdb-patches, ken.werner
Joel Brobecker wrote:
> > >Probably this wasn't intentional?
> > >
> >
> > Oops, another instance of the same thing:
>
> I wish the compiler would warn us about things like this... The patch
> looks correct to me, but I will let Ken and Ulrich take a look. Perhaps
> they'll be able to suggest a more specific name than `length2' ;-).
I guess I'd go with something along these lines ...
Bye,
Ulrich
Index: gdb/opencl-lang.c
===================================================================
RCS file: /cvs/src/src/gdb/opencl-lang.c,v
retrieving revision 1.7
diff -u -p -r1.7 opencl-lang.c
--- gdb/opencl-lang.c 21 Feb 2011 15:53:10 -0000 1.7
+++ gdb/opencl-lang.c 28 Feb 2011 15:14:56 -0000
@@ -263,11 +263,11 @@ lval_func_check_validity (const struct v
for (i = start; i < end; i++)
{
- int startoffset = (i == start) ? startrest : 0;
- int length = (i == end) ? endrest : elsize;
+ int comp_offset = (i == start) ? startrest : 0;
+ int comp_length = (i == end) ? endrest : elsize;
- if (!value_bits_valid (c->val, c->indices[i] * elsize + startoffset,
- length))
+ if (!value_bits_valid (c->val, c->indices[i] * elsize + comp_offset,
+ comp_length))
return 0;
}
@@ -317,12 +317,12 @@ lval_func_check_synthetic_pointer (const
for (i = start; i < end; i++)
{
- int startoffset = (i == start) ? startrest : 0;
- int length = (i == end) ? endrest : elsize;
+ int comp_offset = (i == start) ? startrest : 0;
+ int comp_length = (i == end) ? endrest : elsize;
if (!value_bits_synthetic_pointer (c->val,
- c->indices[i] * elsize + startoffset,
- length))
+ c->indices[i] * elsize + comp_offset,
+ comp_length))
return 0;
}
--
Dr. Ulrich Weigand
GNU Toolchain for Linux on System z and Cell BE
Ulrich.Weigand@de.ibm.com
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* Re: [RFC] Compile GDB with -Wshadow?
2011-02-28 5:01 ` [RFC] Compile GDB with -Wshadow? (was: "Re: [rfa] function parameter shadowed by local variable in opencl-lang.c") Joel Brobecker
2011-02-28 5:39 ` Jan Kratochvil
@ 2011-02-28 15:48 ` Tom Tromey
1 sibling, 0 replies; 11+ messages in thread
From: Tom Tromey @ 2011-02-28 15:48 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Joel Brobecker; +Cc: Michael Snyder, gdb-patches
>>>>> "Joel" == Joel Brobecker <brobecker@adacore.com> writes:
>> I wish the compiler would warn us about things like this... The patch
>> looks correct to me, but I will let Ken and Ulrich take a look. Perhaps
>> they'll be able to suggest a more specific name than `length2' ;-).
Joel> Howzabout we add -Wshadow to the list of warning compiler switches
Joel> for GCC? Something like this (untested for now, just to give an idea
Joel> for this discussion)...
-Wshadow also warns about a local variable whose name clashes with a
function. I find this to be a bit unfriendly.
I wish GCC had a variant of -Wshadow where clashes with functions were
only reported if the shadowing variable had pointer-to-function type.
That said, I don't really mind if we have to change some local variable
names around to satisfy various platforms. It is just a lot of work.
Tom
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* Re: [RFC] Compile GDB with -Wshadow?
2011-02-28 9:29 ` Mark Kettenis
@ 2011-02-28 18:15 ` Michael Snyder
0 siblings, 0 replies; 11+ messages in thread
From: Michael Snyder @ 2011-02-28 18:15 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Mark Kettenis; +Cc: brobecker, jan.kratochvil, gdb-patches
Mark Kettenis wrote:
>> Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2011 11:39:49 +0400
>> From: Joel Brobecker <brobecker@adacore.com>
>>
>>> That would be great but it produces now 627 errors, I am not going to fix
>>> them, they look each one needs a specific fix.
>> :-(. Completely impractical at this stage. It's really surprising
>> that we would have so many errors of this kind...
>
> Well they're not errors per-se. Bad style perhaps, but that of course
> can be argued.
The ones I pointed out were all shadowing of a parameter.
These are probably shadowing of an outer scope.
As you say, not really errors in either case, but surely
a potential source of confusion for maintainers.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* Re: [rfa] function parameter shadowed by local variable in opencl-lang.c
2011-02-28 15:23 ` [rfa] function parameter shadowed by local variable in opencl-lang.c Ulrich Weigand
@ 2011-02-28 18:43 ` Michael Snyder
0 siblings, 0 replies; 11+ messages in thread
From: Michael Snyder @ 2011-02-28 18:43 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Ulrich Weigand; +Cc: Joel Brobecker, gdb-patches, ken.werner
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 442 bytes --]
Ulrich Weigand wrote:
> Joel Brobecker wrote:
>>>> Probably this wasn't intentional?
>>>>
>>> Oops, another instance of the same thing:
>> I wish the compiler would warn us about things like this... The patch
>> looks correct to me, but I will let Ken and Ulrich take a look. Perhaps
>> they'll be able to suggest a more specific name than `length2' ;-).
>
> I guess I'd go with something along these lines ...
So committed, as attached.
[-- Attachment #2: rename.txt --]
[-- Type: text/plain, Size: 1512 bytes --]
2011-02-28 Michael Snyder <msnyder@vmware.com>
* opencl-lang.c (lval_func_check_validity): Rename inner variables.
(lval_func_check_synthetic_pointer): Ditto.
Index: opencl-lang.c
===================================================================
RCS file: /cvs/src/src/gdb/opencl-lang.c,v
retrieving revision 1.8
diff -u -p -u -p -r1.8 opencl-lang.c
--- opencl-lang.c 28 Feb 2011 18:31:36 -0000 1.8
+++ opencl-lang.c 28 Feb 2011 18:39:17 -0000
@@ -263,11 +263,11 @@ lval_func_check_validity (const struct v
for (i = start; i < end; i++)
{
- int startoffset = (i == start) ? startrest : 0;
- int length = (i == end) ? endrest : elsize;
+ int comp_offset = (i == start) ? startrest : 0;
+ int comp_length = (i == end) ? endrest : elsize;
- if (!value_bits_valid (c->val, c->indices[i] * elsize + startoffset,
- length))
+ if (!value_bits_valid (c->val, c->indices[i] * elsize + comp_offset,
+ comp_length))
return 0;
}
@@ -317,12 +317,12 @@ lval_func_check_synthetic_pointer (const
for (i = start; i < end; i++)
{
- int startoffset = (i == start) ? startrest : 0;
- int length = (i == end) ? endrest : elsize;
+ int comp_offset = (i == start) ? startrest : 0;
+ int comp_length = (i == end) ? endrest : elsize;
if (!value_bits_synthetic_pointer (c->val,
- c->indices[i] * elsize + startoffset,
- length))
+ c->indices[i] * elsize + comp_offset,
+ comp_length))
return 0;
}
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2011-02-28 18:41 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 11+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2011-02-26 23:26 [rfa] function parameter shadowed by local variable in opencl-lang.c Michael Snyder
2011-02-26 23:36 ` Michael Snyder
2011-02-28 4:57 ` Joel Brobecker
2011-02-28 5:01 ` [RFC] Compile GDB with -Wshadow? (was: "Re: [rfa] function parameter shadowed by local variable in opencl-lang.c") Joel Brobecker
2011-02-28 5:39 ` Jan Kratochvil
2011-02-28 9:09 ` Joel Brobecker
2011-02-28 9:29 ` Mark Kettenis
2011-02-28 18:15 ` [RFC] Compile GDB with -Wshadow? Michael Snyder
2011-02-28 15:48 ` Tom Tromey
2011-02-28 15:23 ` [rfa] function parameter shadowed by local variable in opencl-lang.c Ulrich Weigand
2011-02-28 18:43 ` Michael Snyder
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).