On Mon, 5 Feb 2024 10:58:17 GMT, Magnus Ihse Bursie wrote:
>> Inspired by (the later backed-out)
>> [JDK-8296115](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8296115), I propose to
>> enable `-Wpedantic` for clang. This has already found some irregularities in
>> the code, like mistakenly using
On Mon, 5 Feb 2024 10:58:17 GMT, Magnus Ihse Bursie wrote:
>> Inspired by (the later backed-out)
>> [JDK-8296115](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8296115), I propose to
>> enable `-Wpedantic` for clang. This has already found some irregularities in
>> the code, like mistakenly using
On Mon, 5 Feb 2024 10:58:17 GMT, Magnus Ihse Bursie wrote:
>> Inspired by (the later backed-out)
>> [JDK-8296115](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8296115), I propose to
>> enable `-Wpedantic` for clang. This has already found some irregularities in
>> the code, like mistakenly using
On Mon, 5 Feb 2024 21:39:06 GMT, Magnus Ihse Bursie wrote:
> Here is the full list:
> https://clang.llvm.org/docs/DiagnosticsReference.html#wpedantic
I know about that list, and that's not what I was asking for. I want to
understand the impact on *our* code. What warnings are arising from
On Mon, 5 Feb 2024 10:58:17 GMT, Magnus Ihse Bursie wrote:
>> Inspired by (the later backed-out)
>> [JDK-8296115](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8296115), I propose to
>> enable `-Wpedantic` for clang. This has already found some irregularities in
>> the code, like mistakenly using
On Mon, 5 Feb 2024 15:42:40 GMT, Kim Barrett wrote:
> I thought we didn't, because we were instead supposed to use INTPTR_FORMAT and
the (currently?) equivalent PTR_FORMAT. Those macros aren't legacy, they are
to provide consistent output across platforms. "%p" provides implementation
defined
On Mon, 5 Feb 2024 16:19:59 GMT, Magnus Ihse Bursie wrote:
> Is there anything in this proposed PR that you gentlemen disagree with or
> object to? Or is this fine to push as a step in our ongoing pursuit of
> increasing the code quality, that can (and will) be followed by many more?
Yes. As
On Mon, 5 Feb 2024 10:58:17 GMT, Magnus Ihse Bursie wrote:
>> Inspired by (the later backed-out)
>> [JDK-8296115](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8296115), I propose to
>> enable `-Wpedantic` for clang. This has already found some irregularities in
>> the code, like mistakenly using
On Mon, 5 Feb 2024 10:58:17 GMT, Magnus Ihse Bursie wrote:
>> Inspired by (the later backed-out)
>> [JDK-8296115](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8296115), I propose to
>> enable `-Wpedantic` for clang. This has already found some irregularities in
>> the code, like mistakenly using
On Mon, 5 Feb 2024 10:58:17 GMT, Magnus Ihse Bursie wrote:
>> Inspired by (the later backed-out)
>> [JDK-8296115](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8296115), I propose to
>> enable `-Wpedantic` for clang. This has already found some irregularities in
>> the code, like mistakenly using
On Mon, 5 Feb 2024 10:58:17 GMT, Magnus Ihse Bursie wrote:
>> Inspired by (the later backed-out)
>> [JDK-8296115](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8296115), I propose to
>> enable `-Wpedantic` for clang. This has already found some irregularities in
>> the code, like mistakenly using
On Mon, 5 Feb 2024 15:42:40 GMT, Kim Barrett wrote:
>>> I consider the "format '%p' expects argument of type 'void*" warnings to be
>>> not at all helpful. Fortunately we don't use '%p' in HotSpot,
>>
>> We do use it in hotspot. Not a huge amount as we have the legacy format
>> specifiers for
On Mon, 5 Feb 2024 06:15:08 GMT, David Holmes wrote:
> > I consider the "format '%p' expects argument of type 'void*" warnings to be
> > not at all helpful. Fortunately we don't use '%p' in HotSpot,
>
> We do use it in hotspot. Not a huge amount as we have the legacy format
> specifiers for
> On Feb 5, 2024, at 4:31 AM, Magnus Ihse Bursie wrote:
>
> On Mon, 5 Feb 2024 03:21:35 GMT, Kim Barrett wrote:
>
>>> Inspired by (the later backed-out)
>>> [JDK-8296115](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8296115), I propose to
>>> enable `-Wpedantic` for clang. This has already found some
On Mon, 5 Feb 2024 03:21:35 GMT, Kim Barrett wrote:
>> Inspired by (the later backed-out)
>> [JDK-8296115](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8296115), I propose to
>> enable `-Wpedantic` for clang. This has already found some irregularities in
>> the code, like mistakenly using `#import`
On Mon, 5 Feb 2024 10:58:17 GMT, Magnus Ihse Bursie wrote:
>> Inspired by (the later backed-out)
>> [JDK-8296115](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8296115), I propose to
>> enable `-Wpedantic` for clang. This has already found some irregularities in
>> the code, like mistakenly using
On Mon, 5 Feb 2024 10:58:17 GMT, Magnus Ihse Bursie wrote:
>> Inspired by (the later backed-out)
>> [JDK-8296115](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8296115), I propose to
>> enable `-Wpedantic` for clang. This has already found some irregularities in
>> the code, like mistakenly using
On Mon, 5 Feb 2024 12:15:50 GMT, Magnus Ihse Bursie wrote:
> > Shouldn't this be -pedantic -Wpedantic, and wouldn't this be better
> > positioned at where HotSpot currently sets -permissive- for Microsoft
> > Visual C++ (In other words, TOOLCHAIN_CFLAGS_JVM and TOOLCHAIN_CFLAGS_JDK)?
> > The
On Mon, 5 Feb 2024 10:49:07 GMT, Julian Waters wrote:
> The other concern I had was that there are a ton of disabled warnings added
> by this change, but I guess that's already been answered by that other reply
Just to be clear: these warnings have never been turned on. They are implicitly
On Mon, 5 Feb 2024 10:49:07 GMT, Julian Waters wrote:
> Shouldn't this be -pedantic -Wpedantic, and wouldn't this be better
> positioned at where HotSpot currently sets -permissive- for Microsoft Visual
> C++ (In other words, TOOLCHAIN_CFLAGS_JVM and TOOLCHAIN_CFLAGS_JDK)? The 2
> options are
> Inspired by (the later backed-out)
> [JDK-8296115](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8296115), I propose to
> enable `-Wpedantic` for clang. This has already found some irregularities in
> the code, like mistakenly using `#import` instead of `#include`. In this
> patch, I disable warnings
On Mon, 5 Feb 2024 10:44:59 GMT, Magnus Ihse Bursie wrote:
> I am sorry, but all I can see is:
>
> > Just a few questions...
>
> and then your comment ends. And I can't find any other comment with a list of
> questions.
Eh? Aren't they in the code review section? But in any case:
>
On Fri, 2 Feb 2024 15:22:03 GMT, Magnus Ihse Bursie wrote:
> Inspired by (the later backed-out)
> [JDK-8296115](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8296115), I propose to
> enable `-Wpedantic` for clang. This has already found some irregularities in
> the code, like mistakenly using `#import`
On Mon, 5 Feb 2024 09:32:09 GMT, Magnus Ihse Bursie wrote:
> > at least not for a future version applying to gcc builds.
>
> @kimbarrett @TheShermanTanker Please do not drag gcc into this PR. This is
> just about clang. Unless gcc makes a serious effort to shape up their
> inferior warning
On Fri, 2 Feb 2024 15:22:03 GMT, Magnus Ihse Bursie wrote:
> Inspired by (the later backed-out)
> [JDK-8296115](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8296115), I propose to
> enable `-Wpedantic` for clang. This has already found some irregularities in
> the code, like mistakenly using `#import`
On Mon, 5 Feb 2024 03:07:43 GMT, Kim Barrett wrote:
> at least not for a future version applying to gcc builds.
@kimbarrett @TheShermanTanker Please do not drag gcc into this PR. This is just
about clang. Unless gcc makes a serious effort to shape up their inferior
warning handling, I don't
On Mon, 5 Feb 2024 03:21:35 GMT, Kim Barrett wrote:
>> Inspired by (the later backed-out)
>> [JDK-8296115](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8296115), I propose to
>> enable `-Wpedantic` for clang. This has already found some irregularities in
>> the code, like mistakenly using `#import`
On Mon, 5 Feb 2024 03:21:35 GMT, Kim Barrett wrote:
>> Inspired by (the later backed-out)
>> [JDK-8296115](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8296115), I propose to
>> enable `-Wpedantic` for clang. This has already found some irregularities in
>> the code, like mistakenly using `#import`
On Fri, 2 Feb 2024 15:22:03 GMT, Magnus Ihse Bursie wrote:
> Inspired by (the later backed-out)
> [JDK-8296115](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8296115), I propose to
> enable `-Wpedantic` for clang. This has already found some irregularities in
> the code, like mistakenly using `#import`
On Sun, 4 Feb 2024 22:52:19 GMT, Magnus Ihse Bursie wrote:
> > Guess I could work on the gcc counterpart and find a way around the
> > inability to disable -Wpedantic with it in tandem with this change...
>
> I don't think that is possible. The double semicolon rule can only be
> disabled by
On Mon, 5 Feb 2024 03:07:43 GMT, Kim Barrett wrote:
> I consider the "format '%p' expects argument of type 'void*" warnings to be
> not at all helpful. Fortunately we don't use '%p' in HotSpot,
We do use it in hotspot. Not a huge amount as we have the legacy format
specifiers for PTR_FORMAT
On Fri, 2 Feb 2024 15:22:03 GMT, Magnus Ihse Bursie wrote:
> Inspired by (the later backed-out)
> [JDK-8296115](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8296115), I propose to
> enable `-Wpedantic` for clang. This has already found some irregularities in
> the code, like mistakenly using `#import`
On Fri, 2 Feb 2024 15:22:03 GMT, Magnus Ihse Bursie wrote:
> #define DEBUG_ONLY(code) code;
>
> DEBUG_ONLY(foo());
> ```
>
> will result in a `; ;`. This breaks the C standard, but is benign, and we use
> it all over the place. On clang, we can ignore this by `-Wno-extra-semi`, but
> this is
On Fri, 2 Feb 2024 15:59:56 GMT, Julian Waters wrote:
> Guess I could work on the gcc counterpart and find a way around the inability
> to disable -Wpedantic with it in tandem with this change...
I don't think that is possible. The double semicolon rule can only be disabled
by disabling
On Fri, 2 Feb 2024 15:22:03 GMT, Magnus Ihse Bursie wrote:
> Inspired by (the later backed-out)
> [JDK-8296115](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8296115), I propose to
> enable `-Wpedantic` for clang. This has already found some irregularities in
> the code, like mistakenly using `#import`
On Fri, 2 Feb 2024 15:22:03 GMT, Magnus Ihse Bursie wrote:
> Inspired by (the later backed-out)
> [JDK-8296115](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8296115), I propose to
> enable `-Wpedantic` for clang. This has already found some irregularities in
> the code, like mistakenly using `#import`
On Fri, 2 Feb 2024 15:22:03 GMT, Magnus Ihse Bursie wrote:
> Inspired by (the later backed-out)
> [JDK-8296115](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8296115), I propose to
> enable `-Wpedantic` for clang. This has already found some irregularities in
> the code, like mistakenly using `#import`
On Fri, 2 Feb 2024 15:22:03 GMT, Magnus Ihse Bursie wrote:
> Inspired by (the later backed-out)
> [JDK-8296115](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8296115), I propose to
> enable `-Wpedantic` for clang. This has already found some irregularities in
> the code, like mistakenly using `#import`
Inspired by (the later backed-out)
[JDK-8296115](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8296115), I propose to enable
`-Wpedantic` for clang. This has already found some irregularities in the code,
like mistakenly using `#import` instead of `#include`. In this patch, I disable
warnings for these
39 matches
Mail list logo
