[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <176133222994.3710582.4946257287449096710.b4-ty@kernel.org>
Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2025 11:57:09 -0700
From: Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>
To: linux-perf-users@...r.kernel.org, acme@...nel.org,
James Clark <james.clark@...aro.org>
Cc: irogers@...gle.com, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com>,
Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...nel.org>, Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@...el.com>,
Nathan Chancellor <nathan@...nel.org>,
Nick Desaulniers <nick.desaulniers+lkml@...il.com>,
Bill Wendling <morbo@...gle.com>, Justin Stitt <justinstitt@...gle.com>,
Tianyou Li <tianyou.li@...el.com>, Thomas Falcon <thomas.falcon@...el.com>,
Zhiguo Zhou <zhiguo.zhou@...el.com>, Wangyang Guo <wangyang.guo@...el.com>,
Pan Deng <pan.deng@...el.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
llvm@...ts.linux.dev
Subject: Re: [PATCH] perf annotate: Fix Clang build by adding block in
switch case
On Wed, 22 Oct 2025 12:02:40 +0100, James Clark wrote:
> Clang and GCC disagree with what constitutes a "declaration after
> statement". GCC allows declarations in switch cases without an extra
> block, as long as it's immediately after the label. Clang does not.
> Unfortunately this is the case even in the latest versions of both
> compilers. The only option that makes them behave in the same way is
> -Wpedantic, which can't be enabled in Perf because of the number of
> warnings it generates.
>
> [...]
Applied to perf-tools-next, thanks!
Best regards,
Namhyung
Powered by blists - more mailing lists