[OpenJDK 2D-Dev] RFR: Bug Pending: Build fails to compile jchuff.c
adam.farley at uk.ibm.com
Wed Feb 7 16:38:29 UTC 2018
Re: [OpenJDK 2D-Dev] RFR: Bug Pending: Build fails to compile
jchuff.cErik Joelsson to: Adam Farley8 01/02/2018 17:06
Cc: build-dev, David Holmes, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz, Magnus Ihse Bursie
From: Erik Joelsson <erik.joelsson at oracle.com>
To: Adam Farley8 <adam.farley at uk.ibm.com>
Cc: build-dev <build-dev at openjdk.java.net>, David Holmes
<david.holmes at oracle.com>, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
<glaubitz at physik.fu-berlin.de>, Magnus Ihse Bursie
<magnus.ihse.bursie at oracle.com>
> Am I understanding this correctly that it's really not tied to a gcc
> but a cpu architecture, so it's only really affecting s390x?
I'm saying it is tied to a combination of CPU architecture and gcc
Any combination of the affected gcc versions (4.8.5, 5.4.0) and affected
platforms (zLinux, ppcle Linux) see this error.
x86 Linux is not affected, not are gcc versions equal to (or, I assume,
> Are you also saying that gcc 7.2.1 is also affected but with a different
> message? I'm fine with disabling this warning conditional on s390x, no
> for specific gcc versions.
I was unclear. 7.2.1 fails my unit test with a different warning, but a
I ran proves that this warning doesn't fail the build.
That being said, the addition of this option to a 7.2.1 test didn't seem
break anything, so we should be fine to just stick
"DISABLED_WARNINGS_gcc := clobbered array-bounds" into Awt2dLibraries.gmk.
> This discussion has already taken more time than it really warrants. :)
> Regarding warning chasing. I agree that we it's not feasible to chase
> warning in every version of GCC, or any other toolchain, but I also
> for platforms/configurations where people are actively developing
> OpenJDK, it makes sense to try to keep it clean. This helps prevent new
> introducing warnings. For the configurations Oracle use, we keep a
> policy because we want the code to be clean. I'm fine with other users
> keep the same standards on their configurations, but knowing that it
will be their
> responsibility to keep up to date. I also think we need to be reasonably
> in when we disable warnings. Specifying every affected version of a
toolchain is too
> much, but if there are specific well defined limits to where the
> then I think we should use them, within reason. This also helps with
> of why a particular warning is disabled in a future attempt to fix them.
I agree with all of this. Well put. :)
> On the other hand, if you are just building OpenJDK to produce binaries,
> producing and up streaming new code changes, there really isn't much
> making the effort of trying to keep things clean, and trying to do so
> just end up being more work than it's worth.
I'm building OpenJDK to test fixes and new features, which I will
to OpenJDK. I consider this to be one of those fixes. One fix at a time.
Given all of this, I ask for a volunteer to raise a bug so we can
integrate this change
into JDK8 (as it's still very popular), and JDK.
10 would be great too, though I understand it's locked against all but the
9 is optional, as it's soon to be replaced by 10.
Unless stated otherwise above:
IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with number
Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6 3AU
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the 2d-dev