On Fri, 28 Jul 2023 11:16:41 GMT, Alexander Zvegintsev <[email protected]> wrote:
>> There is no good way to put the comment straight into this block, AFAICS. >> Can we settle on repository history to tell future investigations why this >> was added? > > How about using a variable with a useful name? e.g.: > > `DISABLED_FOR_NOT_COMPLETE_COMPILER_CHECK := undef` > ... > > > DISABLED_WARNINGS_gcc_OGLPaints.c := format-nonliteral, \ > DISABLED_WARNINGS_gcc_screencast_pipewire.c := > $(DISABLED_FOR_NOT_COMPLETE_COMPILER_CHECK), \ > DISABLED_WARNINGS_gcc_screencast_portal.c := > $(DISABLED_FOR_NOT_COMPLETE_COMPILER_CHECK), \ > DISABLED_WARNINGS_gcc_sun_awt_X11_GtkFileDialogPeer.c := parentheses, > \ Let's not over-complicate this? Most (all?) warning exclusions I saw were are added without checking for toolchain version. Limiting blast radius to just a toolchain and compilation unit seems good already. ------------- PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/14995#discussion_r1277558524
