lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2012]   [Mar]   [19]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: [PATCH] perf report: Add a simple GTK2-based 'perf report' browser
    Em Fri, Feb 24, 2012 at 12:05:56PM +0200, Pekka Enberg escreveu:
    > On Fri, Feb 24, 2012 at 11:48 AM, Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu> wrote:
    > > * Pekka Enberg <penberg@kernel.org> wrote:
    > >
    > >> On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 10:33 PM, Colin Walters <walters@verbum.org> wrote:
    > >> >> Sure. We don't want to do that for all files. Just for the ones that
    > >> >> include <gtk/gtk.h>.
    > >> >
    > >> > #pragma GCC diagnostic push
    > >> > #pragma GCC diagnostic ignored "-Wstrict-prototypes"
    > >> > #include <gtk/gtk.h>
    > >> > #pragma GCC diagnostic pop
    > >>
    > >> It's cleaner to do it at Makefile level. We should do
    > >> something like sparse.git Makefile does where you can
    > >> optionally specify CFLAGS for individual source files.
    > >
    > > I actually like the #pragma hack because it only turns off the
    > > check for that broken header and keeps our checks in place for
    > > the rest of the .c file.
    > >
    > > Could be turned into a util/gtk.h file that is included instead
    > > of <gtk/gtk.h>, so that we don't have to see the #pragma
    > > workaround all the time?
    >
    > Sure, makes sense.

    Using just:

    #pragma GCC diagnostic ignored "-Wstrict-prototypes"
    #include <gtk/gtk.h>
    #pragma GCC diagnostic error "-Wstrict-prototypes"

    Since push/pop was introduced in gcc 4.6, and here at the test machine
    using RHEL6.2 I have gcc 4.4.6.

    - Arnaldo


    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2012-03-19 19:15    [W:0.023 / U:89.960 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site