On Fri, 11 Aug 2023 07:41:45 GMT, Julian Waters <jwat...@openjdk.org> wrote:
>> Oh. That's not good. Having such an undocumented reliance on order of >> include just begs to bitrot at some point. Any chance you could unravel that >> mystery, maybe in a later RFE? For now, can you please add a comment at >> those places where you changed include order for that reason? > > I can try doing that, yes. There was actually a commit before this one that > addressed the same issue in awt, but it missed this one since without > -permissive- this error isn't caught, see > [8241087](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8241087) > > Looking at the error logs, I believe this may be due to an issue this causes > with templates in the comip.h header, but I don't think that's the main > problem to be worried about, rather it's that malloc (and calloc and realloc > and the JDK's ExceptionOccured method too by the way) is redefined like this > in the first place. I don't have any ideas for how to deal with that at the > moment unfortunately this is very worrying as it seems to suggest that in the same C++ source file we have some code that wants the standard malloc, some that wants a redefined malloc, and I've no idea of the consequences. ------------- PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/15096#discussion_r1380640040
