On 04.08.2023 17:27, Nicola Vetrini wrote:
> The types u{8,16,32,64} defined in 'xen/arch/x86/include/asm/types.h'
> shadow the variables in the modified function, hence violating Rule 5.3.
> Therefore, the rename takes care of the shadowing.
>
> No functional changes.
>
> Signed-off-by: Nicola Vetrini <nicola.vetr...@bugseng.com>
> ---
> xen/common/libelf/libelf-tools.c | 24 ++++++++++++------------
> 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/xen/common/libelf/libelf-tools.c
> b/xen/common/libelf/libelf-tools.c
> index a9edb6a8dc..f0d5da1abf 100644
> --- a/xen/common/libelf/libelf-tools.c
> +++ b/xen/common/libelf/libelf-tools.c
> @@ -91,10 +91,10 @@ uint64_t elf_access_unsigned(struct elf_binary * elf,
> elf_ptrval base,
> {
> elf_ptrval ptrval = base + moreoffset;
> bool need_swap = elf_swap(elf);
> - const uint8_t *u8;
> - const uint16_t *u16;
> - const uint32_t *u32;
> - const uint64_t *u64;
> + const uint8_t *uint8;
> + const uint16_t *uint16;
> + const uint32_t *uint32;
> + const uint64_t *uint64;
While the chosen names won't collide with stdint.h's, I still consider
them odd. These all being pointers, why not simply pu<N> as names?
Jan
