On Thu, 12 Sept 2024 at 12:33, Peter Smith <smithpb2...@gmail.com> wrote: > I normally build the code with warnings enabled (specifically, > -Wshadow) which exposes many "shadowed" declarations. > > It would be better to reduce warnings wherever it's easy to do so, > because if we always see/ignore lots of warnings then sooner or later > something important may escape attention. In any case, just removing > these warnings sometimes makes the code more readable by removing any > ambiguity.
0fe954c28 did add -Wshadow=compatible-local to the standard set of complication flags. I felt it was diminishing returns after that, but -Wshadow=local would be the next step before going full -Wshadow. There was justification for -Wshadow=compatible-local because there has been > 1 bug (see af7d270dd) fixed that would have been found if we'd had that sooner. Have we ever had any bugs that would have been highlighted by -Wshadow but not -Wshadow=compatible-local? I'd be curious to know if you do go through this process of weeding these out if you do find any bugs as a result. I also wonder if we could ever get this to a stable point. I didn't take the time to understand what 388e80132 did. Is that going to protect us from getting warnings where fixing them is beyond our control for full -Wshadow? David
