On 07/08/2023 15:42, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 07.08.2023 15:18, Nicola Vetrini wrote:
On 07/08/2023 15:05, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 04.08.2023 10:03, Nicola Vetrini wrote:
The parameters renamed in the function declaration caused shadowing
with the homonymous variable in 'xen/common/efi/boot.c'. Renaming
them also addresses Rule 8.3:
"All declarations of an object or function shall use the same names
and type qualifiers".
Can you explain to me how shadowing can happen in a declaration? I
would focus on 8.3 here, and only mention the other name collision.
There's "static struct file __initdata kernel;" in
xen/common/efi/boot.c, which
is visible when the function is declared. Since renaming these
parameter
names would
have been addressed by Federico for R8.3 anyway, my intention was to
address them both.
I understand what you say, but your reply doesn't answer my question.
Just to emphasize the important aspect: I could see the shadowing
aspect if the _definition_ of construct_dom0() used "kernel". But I'm
asking about declarations (the one here as well as in general): I
can't see how any shadowing can occur without there being any code in
the position of using any such variable / parameter. IOW if Eclair
spits out 5.3 violations on declarations, I'm inclined to think it's
wrong. (Because of 8.3 a violation there would then need dealing with
anyway, but _only_ because of 8.3, if the definition is already okay.)
Jan
The declaration itself is a scope and shadowing can happen, as in:
int x;
void f(int x, int arr[x]);
Now, the example is a bit contrived, but the fact that the rule does not
list any
exception motivates this behaviour. In any case, I'll try to rephrase
the commit message
to be less ambiguous.
--
Nicola Vetrini, BSc
Software Engineer, BUGSENG srl (https://bugseng.com)
