-- Summary --
I ask for a committer to go into jdk/jdk and add one word to
make/lib/Awt2dLibraries.gmk
We need to go to line 495 and add array-bounds into the list of disabled
warnings.
So this:
DISABLED_WARNINGS_gcc := clobbered implicit-fallthrough
shift-negative-value, \
becomes this:
Re: [OpenJDK 2D-Dev] RFR: Bug Pending: Build fails to compile
jchuff.cErik Joelsson to: Adam Farley8 01/02/2018 17:06
Cc: build-dev, David Holmes, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz, Magnus Ihse Bursie
From: Erik Joelsson
To: Adam Farley8
Cc: build-dev , David Holmes
, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
, Magn
Hello,
Oracle still builds JDK 10 and 11 using Xcode 6.3 using the Macosx10.9
sdk. We are warning free there. Using newer versions of Xcode is known
to produce warnings.
I'm currently in the process of updating the toolchain versions and
platforms we use at Oracle so this should get fixed in
> On Feb 1, 2018, at 9:05 AM, Erik Joelsson wrote:
>
> Regarding warning chasing. I agree that we it's not feasible to chase down
> every warning in every version of GCC, or any other toolchain, but I also
> think that for platforms/configurations where people are actively developing
> change
Am I understanding this correctly that it's really not tied to a gcc
version but a cpu architecture, so it's only really affecting s390x? Are
you also saying that gcc 7.2.1 is also affected but with a different
message? I'm fine with disabling this warning conditional on s390x, no
need for spec
> On 02/01/2018 12:36 PM, Adam Farley8 wrote:
>> After doing some experimenting, I've discovered the problem isn't
limited to
>> SLES, or gcc 4.8.5, or zLinux.
>>
>> (...)
>> Thoughts?
> I think the problem is more that if you are trying to silence warnings,
> you will end up being busy for a ve
On 02/01/2018 12:36 PM, Adam Farley8 wrote:
After doing some experimenting, I've discovered the problem isn't limited to
SLES, or gcc 4.8.5, or zLinux.
(...)
Thoughts?
I think the problem is more that if you are trying to silence warnings,
you will end up being busy for a very long time since
Hi All,
After doing some experimenting, I've discovered the problem isn't limited
to
SLES, or gcc 4.8.5, or zLinux.
Platforms affected: zLinux, ppcle Linux
Platforms not affected: x86 Linux
gcc versions affected: 4.8.5, 5.4.0
gcc versions unaffected: 7.2.1
linux variations affected: Ubuntu, S
The claim on the wiki was made by Volker on July 13 2017. It was done on
SuSE linux while the reported problem is on zLinux. Maybe they have
different vendor specific patches in their respective gcc builds? Is SAP
still able to build without --disable-warnings-as-errors? This wiki is
supposed t
Hi Magnus,
On 25/01/2018 9:55 AM, Magnus Ihse Bursie wrote:
I'm not sure I'm able to follow where this discussion is heading, but at
the very least I'd like to chime in on the patch below:
I don't like how the entire DISABLED_WARNINGS_gcc line is lifted out. A
better solution is something lik
I'm not sure I'm able to follow where this discussion is heading, but at
the very least I'd like to chime in on the patch below:
I don't like how the entire DISABLED_WARNINGS_gcc line is lifted out. A
better solution is something like this:
ifeq ($(CC_VERSION_NUMBER), 4.8.5)
#Turn off array-
Hi Adam,
The wiki:
https://wiki.openjdk.java.net/display/Build/Supported+Build+Platforms
should have been updated for 10, and I expect it will be updated for 11
as we are looking to update all of the "official" tool chains. Given the
official gcc version for 9 was already 4.9.2 I don't think
The discussion about SLE seems to have taken over.
This was originally about zLinux.
If it actually makes sense for zLinux for JDK 11 then I have no
objections to
the proposed toolchain specific patch ...
If it does not make sense for 11 then I think you should look only at 8u
and prepare
a
>On 01/23/2018 05:25 PM, Adam Farley8 wrote:
>>> SLE-11:* doesn't even have OpenJDK-8 and is also going to be out of
support
>>> next year anyway.
>>
>> Does this mean the gcc version will change? If you have hard
information on
>> this, I'd appreciate the URL.
>
>I'm not sure what you mean. S
On 01/23/2018 05:25 PM, Adam Farley8 wrote:
SLE-11:* doesn't even have OpenJDK-8 and is also going to be out of support
next year anyway.
Does this mean the gcc version will change? If you have hard information on
this, I'd appreciate the URL.
I'm not sure what you mean. SLE12-SP3 ships gcc
> On 01/23/2018 03:13 PM, Adam Farley8 wrote:
>> The URL supplied by David (Holmes) lists 4.8.5 as the gcc version for
>> building JDK9 on SLES 11.3/12.1. Whether it's in a repository or not,
>> I read that as "this is the gcc version you should be building JDK9
on".
>>
>>
https://urldefense.pro
On 01/23/2018 03:13 PM, Adam Farley8 wrote:
The URL supplied by David (Holmes) lists 4.8.5 as the gcc version for
building JDK9 on SLES 11.3/12.1. Whether it's in a repository or not,
I read that as "this is the gcc version you should be building JDK9 on".
https://wiki.openjdk.java.net/display/B
> On 01/23/2018 02:44 PM, Adam Farley8 wrote:
>> John: I read your email, and I understand your position. I disagree
with it,
>> but I understand it. 4.8.5 is an old version of gcc, but right now it
is the
>> listed gcc version for SUSE sles on intel, ppc, ppcle, and zLinux. Even
if
>> this is n
On 01/23/2018 02:44 PM, Adam Farley8 wrote:
John: I read your email, and I understand your position. I disagree with it,
but I understand it. 4.8.5 is an old version of gcc, but right now it is the
listed gcc version for SUSE sles on intel, ppc, ppcle, and zLinux. Even if
this is not the case for
Hi All,
All: I think I responded to everyone below. Please could a committer or
author raise a bug and, if people are happy with this change, line it up
for contribution to JDKs 8-11 (assuming 4.8.5 is still the recommended gcc
for JDK10 and 11 on SUSE sles)?
Erik: One toolchain-specific change,
20 matches
Mail list logo
