Re: Should we remove -Wdeclaration-after-statement?

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
От Noah Misch
Тема Re: Should we remove -Wdeclaration-after-statement?
Дата
Msg-id 20240208005541.bf@rfd.leadboat.com
обсуждение исходный текст
Ответ на Re: Should we remove -Wdeclaration-after-statement?  (Jelte Fennema-Nio <postgres@jeltef.nl>)
Ответы Re: Should we remove -Wdeclaration-after-statement?  (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>)
Список pgsql-hackers
On Mon, Jan 29, 2024 at 04:03:44PM +0100, Jelte Fennema-Nio wrote:
> I feel like this is the type of change where there's not much
> discussion to be had. And the only way to resolve it is to use some
> voting to gauge community opinion.
> 
> So my suggestion is for people to respond with -1, -0.5, +-0, +0.5, or
> +1 to indicate support against/for the change.

I'm +1 for the change, for these reasons:

- Fewer back-patch merge conflicts.  The decls section of long functions is a
  classic conflict point.
- A mid-func decl demonstrates that its var is unused in the first half of the
  func.
- We write Perl in the mixed decls style, without problems.

For me personally, the "inconsistency" concern is negligible.  We allowed "for
(int i = 0", and that inconsistency has been invisible to me.



В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления:

Предыдущее
От: Andres Freund
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: glibc qsort() vulnerability
Следующее
От: Yugo NAGATA
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: Rename setup_cancel_handler in pg_dump