On Sat, Apr 12, 2025 at 12:35 PM Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Peter Geoghegan <p...@bowt.ie> writes: > > The first such complaint concerns a new mcxt.c function parameter that > > shadows a global variable in the same file -- attached patch fixes > > that by renaming the function parameter. Technically, this is a > > distinct type of complaint to the clang-tidy complaints that I > > ordinarily fix this time of year, though it's of the same general > > nature. > > Isn't that obsolete in the wake of 55ef7abf8? I'd be inclined to > leave it alone if no longer needed, because (to me anyway) "darea" > reads worse than "area".
I missed that, because I was working against a branch that diverged with HEAD as of a couple of days ago. You're right -- it's now obsolete. > I don't want to diverge from upstream snowball here, because we do > absorb new snowball versions every so often, so the problem would just > come back. Maybe you could write to upstream and see if they'd accept > the change? If they do, it'd be fine to apply locally. Okay. I don't think that it's worth pursuing upstream. In general I don't expect clang-tidy to have zero "inconsistent parameter" names at any time, due to a number of special cases (mostly with machine-generated code that uses flex). Looks like I'm done with this process, at least until this time next year. -- Peter Geoghegan
