Re: clang-tidy complaints

On Sat, Apr 12, 2025 at 12:35 PM Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)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