Conversation
This warning was enabled by default in bitcoin#8808 but it's a [continuing](bitcoin#9911 (comment)) [source](bitcoin#10089 (comment)) of [annoyance](bitcoin#9911 (comment)) for me and other developers. I'm sick of sounding like a broken record, so disable it again.
|
concept ACK (with apologies to @paveljanik!) If we can find a more intelligent way of managing these warnings so they're not as annoying, I'm all for it. At the moment it feels like the Wshadow tail is wagging the dog. |
|
utACK 2c83911
This was clearly the wrong way to prevent variable name shadows.
|
|
utACK 2c83911 |
Agreed. And there is still value in compiling with Wshadow periodically (with a carefully chosen compiler) and seeing if it finds any bug. |
2c83911 build: Disable Wshadow warning (Wladimir J. van der Laan) Tree-SHA512: e3c1f7253c43449740760da287985b8027344dfc48c8a85ea9bca977c73cbaf75709d6e32ac0fea51eb89dccb48706a5abdf006be45375838df10ccba35e9aa1
|
Postmerge ACK. The real problem is that people use ancient compilers and I have not tested them all (only few selected by some distros as their default compilers). FWIW: I'll compile all my builds with |
2c83911 build: Disable Wshadow warning (Wladimir J. van der Laan) Tree-SHA512: e3c1f7253c43449740760da287985b8027344dfc48c8a85ea9bca977c73cbaf75709d6e32ac0fea51eb89dccb48706a5abdf006be45375838df10ccba35e9aa1
5 participants
This warning was enabled by default in #8808 but it's a continuing source of annoyance for me and other developers. I'm sick of sounding like a broken record, so disable it again.