Re: [PATCH] perf report: Add a simple GTK2-based 'perf report' browser

[Pekka Enberg <penberg@kernel.org>]

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!