From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1161135AbWGJNNR (ORCPT ); Mon, 10 Jul 2006 09:13:17 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S964909AbWGJNNR (ORCPT ); Mon, 10 Jul 2006 09:13:17 -0400 Received: from nf-out-0910.google.com ([64.233.182.187]:44363 "EHLO nf-out-0910.google.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S964886AbWGJNNQ (ORCPT ); Mon, 10 Jul 2006 09:13:16 -0400 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=K3pKUI735rMdmig2ae3pl8NRpW95shB4aARb4w1tA2P9Mjp1ymByIZtXKHWaK1QCzm6H6oqkXsGJMaW0GxZc2x2nONEtpjuAG9rQJ3JLLOPWk2UADXFWerXe7nEz4/wsLAr/OB9f7gieunjhrN7JPI+/YoKaDiqFL+wTetAZgLI= Message-ID: <9a8748490607100613s2489d656g430b80ee06e51782@mail.gmail.com> Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2006 15:13:14 +0200 From: "Jesper Juhl" To: "Arjan van de Ven" Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 0/9] -Wshadow: Making the kernel build clean with -Wshadow Cc: "Dmitry Torokhov" , "Linux Kernel Mailing List" In-Reply-To: <1152536791.4874.43.camel@laptopd505.fenrus.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <9a8748490607100548o14dbe684j40bde90eb19a7558@mail.gmail.com> <1152535999.4874.36.camel@laptopd505.fenrus.org> <1152536791.4874.43.camel@laptopd505.fenrus.org> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 10/07/06, Arjan van de Ven wrote: > On Mon, 2006-07-10 at 09:03 -0400, Dmitry Torokhov wrote: > > > > While we may not have any issues with the present code it can help > > avoiding problems in new code if we have -Wshadow by default. > > I agree with that; however that still depends on the ratio of real bugs > vs "noise". While it's hard to estimate for future code, the existing > code base can be an indication... > One little twist here is that if I end up going through all the current warnings to clean them up then once I know that ratio I'll have already done all the cleanup work, so whatever the bugs/noise ratio turns out to be, all the work will already be done and then (from my point of view) we might as well do it ;-) More seriously; I'll try and sift through the pile I have at the moment and pick out those that look like real bugs, then we can look at that and see if it's worth-while... In any case, even if there are only very few real bugs (or even none) I'm still full willing to do the work to help us protect against future bugs. -- Jesper Juhl Don't top-post http://www.catb.org/~esr/jargon/html/T/top-post.html Plain text mails only, please http://www.expita.com/nomime.html