Review Request: 7193406 - Clean-up JDK Build Warnings in java.util,

Kurchi Hazra kurchi.subhra.hazra at
Wed Aug 29 00:32:12 UTC 2012

Irony of the day - those changes were done by me! 
(  :D

They were probably a mistake/oversight. I guess the better way is 
without those extra spaces. See

If you have time, maybe you can remove those spaces I put in as a part 
of this CR.


On 8/28/2012 5:23 PM, Dan Xu wrote:
> I also thought the space was not needed. But when I made the changes, 
> I found that many similar codes had the space when two or more warning 
> types need to be suppressed. For example, java/util/,  
> java/util/, java/util/, and etc. If 
> only one warning type needs to be suppressed, I don't see the space in 
> our codes. Thanks!
> -Dan
> On 08/28/2012 05:08 PM, Kurchi Hazra wrote:
>> I don't think you need the space before "unchecked" and the one after 
>> "rawtypes" in lines 128 and 147 in
>> - Kurchi
>> On 8/28/2012 4:57 PM, Dan Xu wrote:
>>> Thanks for all your good suggestions!
>>> I have updated my changes, which revoke changes to makefiles and put 
>>> @SuppressWarnings outside methods instead of introducing local 
>>> variables for small methods.
>>> The webrev is at 
>>> Thanks!
>>> -Dan
>>> On 08/27/2012 04:33 PM, Stuart Marks wrote:
>>>> On 8/27/12 3:55 AM, Doug Lea wrote:
>>>>> The underlying issue is that code size is one of the criteria
>>>>> that JITs use to decide to compile/inline etc. So long as they do
>>>>> so, there will be cases here and there where it critically
>>>>> important to keep sizes small in bottleneck code. Not many,
>>>>> but still enough for me to object to efforts that might
>>>>> blindly increase code size for the sake of warnings cleanup.
>>>> I'm pleased that warnings cleanup has attracted this much 
>>>> attention. :-)
>>>> I was wondering where rule about @SuppressWarnings and local 
>>>> variables originally came from, and I tracked this back to 
>>>> Effective Java, Item 24, which says (as part of a fairly long 
>>>> discussion)
>>>>     If you find yourself using the SuppressWarnings annotation
>>>>     on a method or constructor that's more than one line long,
>>>>     you may be able to move it onto a local variable declaration.
>>>>     You may have to declare a new local variable, but it's worth it.
>>>> Aha! So it's all Josh Bloch's fault! :-)
>>>> In the warnings cleanup thus far, and in Dan's webrev, we've 
>>>> followed this rule fairly strictly. But since we seem to have 
>>>> evidence that this change isn't worth it, we should consider 
>>>> relaxing the rule for performance-critical code. How about adding a 
>>>> local variable for @SuppressWarnings only if the method is, say, 
>>>> longer than ten lines? (Or some other suitable threshold.) For 
>>>> short methods the annotation should be placed on the method itself.
>>>> The risk of suppressing other warnings inadvertently is pretty 
>>>> small in a short method, and short methods are the ones most likely 
>>>> to be impacted by the addition of a local variable affecting 
>>>> compilation/inlining decisions. Right?
>>>> (Also, while I've recommended that people follow the local variable 
>>>> rule fairly strictly, I think it tends to garbage up short methods. 
>>>> So I wouldn't mind seeing the rule relaxed on readability grounds 
>>>> as well.)
>>>> s'marks


More information about the core-libs-dev mailing list