[PING^8][PATCH] Add a couple of dialect and warning options regarding Objective-C instance variable scope

[Dimitris Papavasiliou]

Ping!  Does anybody know the current record of longest ping?  I'd like 
to at least break it before giving up.

On 04/03/2014 06:32 PM, Dimitris Papavasiliou wrote:
> Still pinging.
>
> On 03/28/2014 11:58 AM, Dimitris Papavasiliou wrote:
>> Ping!
>>
>> On 03/23/2014 03:20 AM, Dimitris Papavasiliou wrote:
>>> Ping!
>>>
>>> On 03/13/2014 11:54 AM, Dimitris Papavasiliou wrote:
>>>> Ping!
>>>>
>>>> On 03/06/2014 07:44 PM, Dimitris Papavasiliou wrote:
>>>>> Ping!
>>>>>
>>>>> On 02/27/2014 11:44 AM, Dimitris Papavasiliou wrote:
>>>>>> Ping!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 02/20/2014 12:11 PM, Dimitris Papavasiliou wrote:
>>>>>>> Hello all,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Pinging this patch review request again. See previous messages
>>>>>>> quoted
>>>>>>> below for details.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>> Dimitris
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 02/13/2014 04:22 PM, Dimitris Papavasiliou wrote:
>>>>>>>> Hello,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Pinging this patch review request. Can someone involved in the
>>>>>>>> Objective-C language frontend have a quick look at the
>>>>>>>> description of
>>>>>>>> the proposed features and tell me if it'd be ok to have them in the
>>>>>>>> trunk so I can go ahead and create proper patches?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>> Dimitris
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 02/06/2014 11:25 AM, Dimitris Papavasiliou wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Hello,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> This is a patch regarding a couple of Objective-C related dialect
>>>>>>>>> options and warning switches. I have already submitted it a while
>>>>>>>>> ago
>>>>>>>>> but gave up after pinging a couple of times. I am now informed
>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>> should have kept pinging until I got someone's attention so I'm
>>>>>>>>> resending it.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The patch is now against an old revision and as I stated
>>>>>>>>> originally
>>>>>>>>> it's
>>>>>>>>> probably not in a state that can be adopted as is. I'm sending it
>>>>>>>>> as is
>>>>>>>>> so that the implemented features can be assesed in terms of their
>>>>>>>>> usefulness and if they're welcome I'd be happy to make any
>>>>>>>>> necessary
>>>>>>>>> changes to bring it up-to-date, split it into smaller patches, add
>>>>>>>>> test-cases and anything else that is deemed necessary.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Here's the relevant text from my initial message:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Two of these switches are related to a feature request I
>>>>>>>>> submitted a
>>>>>>>>> while ago, Bug 56044
>>>>>>>>> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56044). I won't
>>>>>>>>> reproduce
>>>>>>>>> the entire argument here since it is available in the feature
>>>>>>>>> request.
>>>>>>>>> The relevant functionality in the patch comes in the form of two
>>>>>>>>> switches:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> -Wshadow-ivars which controls the "local declaration of ‘somevar’
>>>>>>>>> hides
>>>>>>>>> instance variable" warning which curiously is enabled by default
>>>>>>>>> instead
>>>>>>>>> of being controlled at least by -Wshadow. The patch changes it so
>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>> this warning can be enabled and disabled specifically through
>>>>>>>>> -Wshadow-ivars as well as with all other shadowing-related
>>>>>>>>> warnings
>>>>>>>>> through -Wshadow.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The reason for the extra switch is that, while searching through
>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>> Internet for a solution to this problem I have found out that
>>>>>>>>> other
>>>>>>>>> people are inconvenienced by this particular warning as well so it
>>>>>>>>> might
>>>>>>>>> be useful to be able to turn it off while keeping all the other
>>>>>>>>> shadowing-related warnings enabled.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> -flocal-ivars which when true, as it is by default, treats
>>>>>>>>> instance
>>>>>>>>> variables as having local scope. If false (-fno-local-ivars)
>>>>>>>>> instance
>>>>>>>>> variables must always be referred to as self->ivarname and
>>>>>>>>> references of
>>>>>>>>> ivarname resolve to the local or global scope as usual.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I've also taken the opportunity of adding another switch
>>>>>>>>> unrelated to
>>>>>>>>> the above but related to instance variables:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> -fivar-visibility which can be set to either private, protected
>>>>>>>>> (the
>>>>>>>>> default), public and package. This sets the default instance
>>>>>>>>> variable
>>>>>>>>> visibility which normally is implicitly protected. My use-case for
>>>>>>>>> it is
>>>>>>>>> basically to be able to set it to public and thus effectively
>>>>>>>>> disable
>>>>>>>>> this visibility mechanism altogether which I find no use for and
>>>>>>>>> therefore have to circumvent. I'm not sure if anyone else feels
>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>> same
>>>>>>>>> way towards this but I figured it was worth a try.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I'm attaching a preliminary patch against the current revision in
>>>>>>>>> case
>>>>>>>>> anyone wants to have a look. The changes are very small and any
>>>>>>>>> blatant
>>>>>>>>> mistakes should be immediately obvious. I have to admit to having
>>>>>>>>> virtually no knowledge of the internals of GCC but I have tried to
>>>>>>>>> keep
>>>>>>>>> in line with formatting guidelines and general style as well as
>>>>>>>>> looking
>>>>>>>>> up the particulars of the way options are handled in the available
>>>>>>>>> documentation to avoid blind copy-pasting. I have also tried to
>>>>>>>>> test
>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>> functionality both in my own (relatively large, or at least not
>>>>>>>>> too
>>>>>>>>> small) project and with small test programs and everything
>>>>>>>>> works as
>>>>>>>>> expected. Finallly, I tried running the tests too but these
>>>>>>>>> fail to
>>>>>>>>> complete both in the patched and unpatched version, possibly
>>>>>>>>> due to
>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>> way I've configured GCC.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Dimitris
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>