On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 3:29 PM, Joao Paulo Rechi Vita <jprvita@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 9:45 AM, Henrique Dante <hdante@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 9:43 AM, Henrique Dante <hdante@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 9:29 AM, Anderson Lizardo >>> <anderson.lizardo@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>> Hi Henrique, >>>> >>>> On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 8:04 AM, Henrique Dante de Almeida >>>> <hdante@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>>> --- >>>>> gdbus/object.c | 39 +++++++++++++++++++++------------------ >>>>> gdbus/watch.c | 4 ++-- >>>>> 2 files changed, 23 insertions(+), 20 deletions(-) >>>> >>>> Would it be interesting to add this option to acinclude.m4? Or does it >>>> generate too much noise? >>> >>> It generates few warnings. Depending on the acceptance of this patch, >>> I could fix bluez as a whole and add -Wshadow to acinclude.m4. >> >> Actually, I had a partial build here. Ignore the previous answer, it >> generates a lot of warnings. >> > > If we're not going to enable -Wshadow by default, does it make sense > to apply this patch? Who is going to check if no new shadow warnings > are being inserted in new commits? I'm all for doing the following: 1) Fix all the places with shadow variables 2) Add -Wshadow to the warning flags There are lots of them. Lucas De Marchi -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-bluetooth" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
