On Wed, 13 Sep 2023 18:18:53 GMT, Kim Barrett <kbarr...@openjdk.org> wrote:
> It seems to be complaining about atomic increment of a data member, which is > really weird. > > ``` > Atomic::add(&_claimed, flushed); > ``` > > When we saw this warning in other places it was because we were passing a > pointer that was known to be null on some (not supposed to be reachable) code > paths. I don't see how that can be what's going on here though. > > There's an Atomic::sub on the same data member a few lines later. Does that > get warned about? And why these? I'm pretty sure there are other places where > we do the same thing. (I'm assuming this warning isn't showing up elsewhere.) > > Disabling the warning for this file feels a bit too much like voodoo, though > might be all we've got right now. Yes, I also saw that inconsistency with _claimed, only add. ------------- PR Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/15593#issuecomment-1718954804
