[lkml]   [2006]   [Nov]   [28]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: [PATCH] Don't compare unsigned variable for <0 in sys_prctl()

    On Wed, 29 Nov 2006, Jesper Juhl wrote:
    > I would venture that "-Wshadow" is another one of those.

    I'd agree, except for the fact that gcc does a horribly _bad_ job of
    -Wshadow, making it (again) totally unusable.

    For example, it's often entirely interesting to hear about local variables
    that shadow each other. No question about it.

    HOWEVER. It's _not_ really interesting to hear about a local variable that
    happens to have a common name that is also shared by a extern function.

    There just isn't any room for confusion, and it's actually not even that
    unusual - I tried using -Wshadow on real programs, and it was just
    horribly irritating.

    In the kernel, we had obvious things like local use of "jiffies" that just
    make _total_ sense in a small inline function, and the fact that there
    happens to be an extern declaration for "jiffies" just isn't very

    Similarly, with nested macro expansion, even the "local variable shadows
    another local variable" case - that looks like it should have an obvious
    warning on the face of it - really isn't always necessarily that
    interesting after all. Maybe it is a bug, maybe it isn't, but it's no
    longer _obviously_ bogus any more.

    So I'm not convinced about the usefulness of "-Wshadow". ESPECIALLY the
    way that gcc implements it, it's almost totally useless in real life.

    For example, I tried it on "git" one time, and this is a perfect example
    of why "-Wshadow" is totally broken:

    diff-delta.c: In function 'create_delta_index':
    diff-delta.c:142: warning: declaration of 'index' shadows a global declaration

    (and there's a _lot_ of those). If I'm not allowed to use "index" as a
    local variable and include <string.h> at the same time, something is
    simply SERIOUSLY WRONG with the warning.

    So the fact is, the C language has scoping rules for a reason. Can you
    screw yourself by usign them badly? Sure. But that does NOT mean that the
    same name in different scopes is a bad thing that should be warned about.

    If I wanted a language that didn't allow me to do anything wrong, I'd be
    using Pascal. As it is, it turns out that things that "look" wrong on a
    local level are often not wrong after all.

    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to
    More majordomo info at
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2009-11-18 23:46    [W:0.024 / U:18.692 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site