[OpenJDK 2D-Dev] RFR(xxxs): 8200052: libjavajpeg: Fix compile warning in jchuff.c
Magnus Ihse Bursie
magnus.ihse.bursie at oracle.com
Tue Apr 3 09:48:28 UTC 2018
On 2018-03-27 18:44, Phil Race wrote:
> As I said I prefer the make file change, since this is a change to an
> upstream library.
Newtons fourth law: For every reviewer, there's an equal and opposite
Here I am, advocating a source code fix. As Thomas says, the compiler
complaint seems reasonable, and disabling it might cause us to miss
other future errors.
Why can't we push the source code fix, and also submit it upstream?
> I've looked at jpeg-9c and it still looks identical to what we have in
> 6b, so this code
> seems to have stood the test of time. I'm also unclear why the
> compiler would
> complain about that and not the one a few lines later
> 819 while (bits[i] == 0) /* find largest codelength still in use */
> 820 i--;
> A push to jchuff.c will get blown away if/when we upgrade.
> A tool-chain specific fix in the makefile with an appropriate comment is more targeted.
> On 03/27/2018 05:44 AM, Thomas Stüfe wrote:
>> Hi all,
>> just a friendly reminder. I would like to push this tiny fix because
>> tripping over this on our linux s390x builds is annoying (yes, we can
>> maintain patch queues, but this is a constant error source).
>> I will wait for 24 more hours until a reaction. If no serious
>> objections are forcoming, I want to push it (tier1 tests ran thru,
>> and me and Christoph langer are both Reviewers).
>> Thanks! Thomas
>> On Wed, Mar 21, 2018 at 6:20 PM, Thomas Stüfe
>> <thomas.stuefe at gmail.com <mailto:thomas.stuefe at gmail.com>> wrote:
>> Hi all,
>> may I please have another review for this really trivial change.
>> It fixes a gcc warning on s390 and ppc. Also, it is probably a
>> good idea to fix this.
>> bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8200052
>> This was contributed by Adam Farley at IBM.
>> I already reviewed this. I also test-built on zlinux and it works.
>> Thanks, Thomas
More information about the build-dev