Thread: clang-tidy complaints

I just pushed my annual commit that makes function parameter names
consistent between function declarations and their corresponding
definitions, to cover the Postgres 18 cycle. The details there were
all straightforward. But there are 2 remaining complaints from
clang-tidy that seem worth fixing, that don't quite fall under any
established policy in this area.

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.

The second such complaint is a standard "function parameter name is
inconsistent" complaint, though it's one that affects vendored code in
src/include/snowball/libstemmer/header.h. I attach a fix for that,
too. In the past we have tended to treat cases with vendored code just
like non-vendored Postgres code, but there's always a question about
whether it's worth diverging from upstream. That needs to be decided
on a case-by-case basis, and I don't know enough to know if I should
proceed here.

I have not attached a fix for a similar vendored code issue that
appears in timingsafe_bcmp.c, since that involved a declaration
provided by my system's openSSL being inconsistent with our own
vendored definition. A fix for that seemed unnecessary.

-- 
Peter Geoghegan

Peter Geoghegan <pg@bowt.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".

> The second such complaint is a standard "function parameter name is
> inconsistent" complaint, though it's one that affects vendored code in
> src/include/snowball/libstemmer/header.h. I attach a fix for that,
> too. In the past we have tended to treat cases with vendored code just
> like non-vendored Postgres code, but there's always a question about
> whether it's worth diverging from upstream. That needs to be decided
> on a case-by-case basis, and I don't know enough to know if I should
> proceed here.

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.

            regards, tom lane

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

Peter Geoghegan <pg@bowt.ie> writes:
> Looks like I'm done with this process, at least until this time next year.

OK.  Thanks for taking care of it.

            regards, tom lane