On Mon, Oct 24, 2016 at 04:26:49PM -0700, Jim Meyering wrote: > I have been using these new options (locally patched) to good effect. > While the vast majority of warning-triggering code has been > technically correct, using these has uncovered at least 4 or 5 real > bugs in code I care about.
Awesome. Thanks for testing. > I see that these new options are not yet on master. Is there anything > I can do to help get this patch accepted? If you could get me 48 hour days that would help :) Sorry, I just ran out of time. I am just a spare time gcc hacker and somehow my spare time disappeared. I think the only thing "blocking" the patch from going in is that nobody made a decission on how the actual warning option should be named. I think the suggestion for -Wshadow=[global|local|compatible-local] is the right one. With -Wshadow being an alias for -Wshadow=global. But since there are already gcc versions out there that accept -Wshadow-local and -Wshadow-compatible-local (and you can find some configure scripts that already check for those options) it would be good to have those as (hidden) aliases. If people, some maintainer, agrees with that then we can do the .opt file hacking to make it so. Cheers, Mark
