Return-Path: MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: References: <1339761848-7472-1-git-send-email-hdante@profusion.mobi> Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2012 15:29:13 -0300 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC] gdbus: Rename variables named "signal" (so that it can be compiled with -Wshadow) From: Joao Paulo Rechi Vita To: Henrique Dante Cc: Anderson Lizardo , linux-bluetooth@vger.kernel.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Sender: linux-bluetooth-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 9:45 AM, Henrique Dante wrote: > On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 9:43 AM, Henrique Dante wrote: >> On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 9:29 AM, Anderson Lizardo >> wrote: >>> Hi Henrique, >>> >>> On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 8:04 AM, Henrique Dante de Almeida >>> 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? -- João Paulo Rechi Vita Openbossa Labs - INdT