From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: by sourceware.org (Postfix, from userid 48)
	id 12FF33858421; Tue, 20 Dec 2022 21:18:13 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 12FF33858421
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
	s=default; t=1671571093;
	bh=T4por12fZQp4JtgLlRi0CqVhYij/MNwKeY4yuSHKibU=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=XG3jttX/yEAzPGK0wfdZ2KlnEfuKXLybmFk2uuX9ALvowtNzdyaSZ49y9EYGME3R5
	 z3ziFmmd1iKDx2dT5lp76sIvpJHjeXrl5UiSyicC1otiVUfB9jw550uGwThSyqQHbf
	 OlyLqDkYsaNfdS2+26l398IeA7y6wMersaP7su5s=
From: "pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug target/108189] anonymous struct declared inside parameter list
 will not be visible outside of this definition or declaration
Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2022 21:18:12 +0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: target
X-Bugzilla-Version: 13.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: 
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Status: RESOLVED
X-Bugzilla-Resolution: MOVED
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: ---
X-Bugzilla-Flags: 
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: 
Message-ID: <bug-108189-4-lBg8mpX9ov@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-108189-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-108189-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
MIME-Version: 1.0
List-Id: <gcc-bugs.sourceware.org>

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D108189

--- Comment #10 from Andrew Pinski <pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to James Hilliard from comment #8)=20
> Yeah, clang with -std=3Dgnu17 -pedantic doesn't even complain at all from=
 the
> looks of it. Does it make sense to allow disabling this specific warning =
in
> GCC?

No it does not make sense at all to disable this specific warning; maybe
request clang implement the warning too.

> What would be the correct way to fix these in bpf-next?

Move the struct definition outside of the function definition? You could ask
the bpf mailing list of what is the fix they would like to see for this
questionable code.=