Hi Gary and David, yes it is value 3 in both cases, I noticed that in the jvmti
XML .
Best regards, Matthias
Von meinem iPhone gesendet
> Am 28.06.2019 um 21:17 schrieb "gary.ad...@oracle.com"
> <gary.ad...@oracle.com>:
>
> I believe you will find in the generate jvmti.h header file
> that both enumerations had assigned value of 3.
> That could explain why a less type strict version of the
> compiler would not have complained.
>
>> On 6/28/19 3:04 PM, David Holmes wrote:
>> Hi Matthias,
>>
>> Dropped build-dev and added serviceability-dev as this is a servicability
>> test.
>>
>>> On 28/06/2019 7:43 am, Baesken, Matthias wrote:
>>> Hello please review this small fix for a compile issue on OSX .
>>> Today I compiled jdk/jdk on a machine with XCode 10.2 . It worked
>>> pretty well .
>>> However this small issue showed up .
>>>
>>>
>>> In file included from
>>> /open_jdk/jdk_just_clone/jdk/test/hotspot/jtreg/vmTestbase/nsk/jvmti/unit/FollowReferences/followref003/libfollowref003.cpp:33:
>>> /open_jdk/jdk_just_clone/jdk/test/hotspot/jtreg/vmTestbase/nsk/jvmti/unit/FollowReferences/followref003/followref003.cpp:813:14:
>>> error:
>>> comparison of two values with different enumeration types in switch
>>> statement ('jvmtiHeapReferenceKind' and 'jvmtiObjectReferenceKind')
>>> [-Werror,-Wenum-compare-switch]
>>>
>>>
>>> And here XCode 10 is correct , JVMTI_REFERENCE_ARRAY_ELEMENT is from a
>>> different enumeration type and should be replaced with the value from
>>> the correct enumeration type .
>>>
>>> Bug / webrev :
>>>
>>> https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8226943
>>>
>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~mbaesken/webrevs/8226943.0/
>>
>> The fix seems reasonable but the issue indicates a further problem with the
>> test. If it expected JVMTI_HEAP_REFERENCE_ARRAY_ELEMENT but was checking for
>> JVMTI_REFERENCE_ARRAY_ELEMENT then we should have hit the default clause and
>> failed the test. That suggests the test doesn't actually expect
>> JVMTI_HEAP_REFERENCE_ARRAY_ELEMENT in the first place.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> David
>>
>>>
>>> Thanks, Matthias
>>>
>
