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

Stuart Marks stuart.marks at
Thu Aug 30 16:31:07 UTC 2012

On 8/30/12 1:17 AM, Andrew Haley wrote:
> On 08/29/2012 11:53 PM, Stuart Marks wrote:
>> On 8/29/12 8:48 AM, Andrew Hughes wrote:
>>> But presumably [-Werror] would be removed when everything is warning free?
>>> -Werror should not be the default for everyone building OpenJDK, who then
>>> end up having to fix or workaround issues which are nothing to do with them.
>>> It's easy enough for those who want to check we don't regress to turn on
>>> -Werror throughout, once everything is warning free.
>> Once everything is warning free, -Werror *should* be enabled by default. That's
>> how we'll keep everything warning free.
>> If everything were warning free, I don't see how people could be blocked by
>> warnings that are unrelated to their current changes. This does happen today
>> with implicit compilation, but it shouldn't happen in the bright shining future
>> where there are no warnings. :-)
> -Werror is probably OK for Java code, but not for HotSpot.
> We GCC developers keep adding new warnings, so poor souls who keep
> up-to-date with new Fedora (and other leading-edge) distributions tend
> to be the first to discover problems.  Thus is very awkward for people
> who don't understand advanced C++ features.

Yes, absolutely, I had intended this to be about Java warnings only, not about 
GCC warnings. More precisely, this discussion is about potentially setting 
JAVAC_WARNINGS_FATAL=true in the makefiles, which obviously applies only to 
Java code.

(And to be absolutely clear, Dan's warnings fix will not change any makefile 
warnings settings. The setting of JAVAC_WARNINGS_FATAL=true may occur in some 
hypothetical future changeset.)

Sorry for the confusion.


More information about the core-libs-dev mailing list