On 10/16/19 9:43 AM, Martin Sebor wrote: > On 10/16/19 9:11 AM, Richard Sandiford wrote: >> Sorry for the slow reply. >> >> Bernd Edlinger <bernd.edlin...@hotmail.de> writes: >>> Hi, >>> >>> this is probably on the border to obvious. >>> >>> The REGEXP_xxx macros in genautomata are invoked >>> recursively, and the local values are all named _regexp >>> and shadow each other. >>> >>> >>> Fixed by using different names _regexp1..6 for each >>> macro. >> >> Sorry to repeat the complaint about numerical suffixes, but I think >> we'd need better names. E.g. _regexp_unit or _re_unit for REGEXP_UNIT >> and similarly for the other macros. But a similar fix to rtl.h might >> be better. > > Should the warning trigger when the shadowing name results from > macro expansion? The author of a macro can't (in general) know > what context it's going to be used, and when different macros > come from two different third party headers, it would seem > pointless to force their users to jump through hoops just to > avoid the innocuous shadowing. Such as in this example: One could make the argument that if you want to avoid shadowing, then you should avoid code within macros for this precise reason. And if you're getting code within macros from 3rd parties, then well, you're in for a world of pain if you're going to try to be shadow-free.
jeff
