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    [from the cache]
©2003-2014 Jasper Spaans. Advertise on this site