On Thu, 2020-05-07 at 16:13 +0200, Jakub Jelinek via Gcc-patches wrote:
> Hi!
>
> On Thu, May 07, 2020 at 02:45:29PM +0200, Thomas Schwinge wrote:
> > > > + for (tree op = win; TREE_CODE (op) == COMPOUND_EXPR;
> >
> > ..., and new 'op' variable here.
> >
> > > > + op = TREE_OPERAND (op, 1))
> > > > + v.safe_push (op);
> > > > + FOR_EACH_VEC_ELT_REVERSE (v, i, op)
> > > > + ret = build2_loc (EXPR_LOCATION (op), COMPOUND_EXPR,
> > > > + TREE_TYPE (win), TREE_OPERAND (op, 0),
> > > > + ret);
> > > > + return ret;
> > > > }
> > > > while (TREE_CODE (op) == NOP_EXPR)
> > > > {
>
> There is no reason for the shadowing and op at this point acts as a
> temporary and will be overwritten in FOR_EACH_VEC_ELT_REVERSE anyway.
> So, we can just s/tree // here.
> Ok for trunk if it passes bootstrap/regtest?
>
> > ("Interesting.") The bootstrapped GCC itself doesn't diagnose this. Is
> > there something to be worried about? (Certainly the variable shadowing
> > could be avoided?)
>
> Nothing to be worried about, -Wshadow isn't part of -W -Wall from what I can
> understand. If you use -Wshadow, it is diagnosed.
>
> 2020-05-07 Jakub Jelinek <ja...@redhat.com>
>
> PR middle-end/94724
> * tree.c (get_narrower): Reuse the op temporary instead of
> shadowing it.
OK
jeff
>
