Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 27 Mar 2012 13:26:27 +0300 (EEST) | From | Pekka Enberg <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] perf report: Add a simple GTK2-based 'perf report' browser |
| |
On Mon, 19 Mar 2012, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote: > 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.
Thanks for taking care of this, Arnaldo and Ingo!
| |