Horton

Re: Should we remove -Wdeclaration-after-statement?

Noah Misch <noah@leadboat.com>

View thread
From: Noah Misch <noah@leadboat.com>
To: Jelte Fennema-Nio <postgres@jeltef.nl>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>, Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net>, "ranier.vf@gmail.com" <ranier.vf@gmail.com>, chap@anastigmatix.net
Date: 2024-02-08T00:55:41Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers 
On Mon, Jan 29, 2024 at 04:03:44PM +0100, Jelte Fennema-Nio wrote:
> I feel like this is the type of change where there's not much
> discussion to be had. And the only way to resolve it is to use some
> voting to gauge community opinion.
> 
> So my suggestion is for people to respond with -1, -0.5, +-0, +0.5, or
> +1 to indicate support against/for the change.

I'm +1 for the change, for these reasons:

- Fewer back-patch merge conflicts.  The decls section of long functions is a
  classic conflict point.
- A mid-func decl demonstrates that its var is unused in the first half of the
  func.
- We write Perl in the mixed decls style, without problems.

For me personally, the "inconsistency" concern is negligible.  We allowed "for
(int i = 0", and that inconsistency has been invisible to me.