Re: Wshadow: Better name for 'optarg'?

[Markus Armbruster]

Philippe Mathieu-Daudé <philmd@linaro.org> writes:

> On 4/10/23 19:35, Thomas Huth wrote:
>> On 04/10/2023 19.23, Richard Henderson wrote:
>>> On 10/4/23 03:05, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote:
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> I'm getting a bunch of errors for 'optarg' declared in <unistd.h>:
>>>
>>> I thought things like this is why we were trying -Wshadow=local.
>>>
>>> I think it's unlikely that we'll be able to prevent all such cases.
>> Given the broad range of operating systems and libraries that we support in 
>> QEMU, I agree with Richard - it will likely be impossible to enable that 
>> option without =local by default without risking that compilation breaks on 
>> some exotic systems or new versions of various libraries.
>
> -Wshadow=local doesn't seem to work here which is why I switched
> to -Wshadow. I probably misunderstood something from Markus cover
> letter. My setup is:
>
> C compiler for the host machine: clang (clang 14.0.3 "Apple clang version 
> 14.0.3 (clang-1403.0.22.14.1)")
>
> I suppose we'll figure that out when eventually enabling -Wshadow=local
> on CI. Meanwhile I already cleaned the 'optarg' warnings that were
> bugging me, see:
> 20231004120019.93101-1-philmd@linaro.org/">https://lore.kernel.org/qemu-devel/20231004120019.93101-1-philmd@linaro.org/
> I'll try to get -Wshadow=local, but the other series still seems a
> good cleanup, as I used more meaningful variable names.

I'm aiming just for -Wshadow=local now.  If somebody else gets us all
the way to -Wshadow, I'll clap from the sidelines.

I'm mildly skeptical about -Wshadow without =local when targeting a wide
range of toolchains over a long time.

Not an objection to cleanup patches such as yours!