tdepim - gcc47 - need help with "which redeclared 'it' is right 'it'?"

Calvin, Slavek, Liddell, I'm trying to fix tdepim to build with gcc47, but I don't understand how to make sure I'm fixing the right 'it' iterator. Specifically, the multiple declaration issue is: /build/src/tdepim/kmail/kmsystemtray.cpp: In member function 'void KMSystemTray::updateNewMessages()': /build/src/tdepim/kmail/kmsystemtray.cpp:485:48: error: redeclaration of 'TQMap<TQGuardedPtr<KMFolder>, int>::Iterator it' /build/src/tdepim/kmail/kmsystemtray.cpp:475:55: error: 'TQMap<TQGuardedPtr<KMFolder>, bool>::Iterator it' previously declared here The code beginning at line 473 is: void KMSystemTray::updateNewMessages() { for ( TQMap<TQGuardedPtr<KMFolder>, bool>::Iterator it = mPendingUpdates.begin(); it != mPendingUpdates.end(); ++it) { KMFolder *fldr = it.key(); if ( !fldr ) // deleted folder continue; /** The number of unread messages in that folder */ int unread = fldr->countUnread(); TQMap<TQGuardedPtr<KMFolder>, int>::Iterator it = mFoldersWithUnread.find(fldr); bool unmapped = (it == mFoldersWithUnread.end()); /** If the folder is not mapped yet, increment count by numUnread in folder */ if(unmapped) mCount += unread; /* Otherwise, get the difference between the numUnread in the folder and * our last known version, and adjust mCount with that difference */ else { int diff = unread - it.data(); mCount += diff; } Looking through the comments and context, there seems to be two 'it' iterators involved: TQMap<.., bool>::...it TQMap<.., int>::...it with the 'bool' declaration being the loop index and the 'int' being used to determine if the folder with unread messages is unmapped. The 'bool' dec seems to be the one used to access the class data (i.e. it.key(), it.data()) If I'm reading that correctly, then we can correct the 'int' iterator by renaming it something like 'unread_it' TQMap<TQGuardedPtr<KMFolder>, int>::Iterator unread_it = mFoldersWithUnread.find(fldr); bool unmapped = (unread_it == mFoldersWithUnread.end()); What say the experts. Is my reading of which 'it' can be renamed correct? -- David C. Rankin, J.D.,P.E.