On Sun, 19 Apr 2026 21:19:03 GMT, Archie Cobbs <[email protected]> wrote:
> I'm sorry but I'm not understanding what you mean by that. Can you give a > concrete example? I think there are two potential issues here: 1. a SW includes a warning not handled by javac (but handled by another compiler, or IDE). Is the suppression then marked as redundant when compiling with javac? 2. a SW category `Foo` includes N warnings in javac, but N + M warnings in some other compiler/IDE. Say that none of the N javac warnings is detected -- we will then proceed to claim this SW has redundant suppressions. But in some other IDE/compiler this might not actually be the case. Now, (1) is simpler to handle than (2) -- after all, we know which warnings javac can handle and which it cannot -- so we might only restrict redundant suppressions to the very categories handled by javac. Which, I think, it's what https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/commit/e16ef3bce55444e6c85fe788b248ba2f1bfe0e4c does. There's no such logic for (2) though. So, in a way, this PR assumes that SW category definition is sort of fixed, and that other tools follow the same classification as what's done in javac. I'm not 100% sure this is always the case, but perhaps this is an area that @stephan-herrmann could help us assess? ------------- PR Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/25167#issuecomment-4279793534
