[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       openjdk-2d-dev
Subject:    Re: RFR: 8312591: GCC 6 build failure after JDK-8280982 [v2]
From:       Aleksey Shipilev <shade () openjdk ! org>
Date:       2023-07-28 13:41:50
Message-ID: tvo1q2Wy_SSfpcWKRu8RzcMxaKssfcDpmXCHe6Nj1gM=.8efca6dd-c669-4b09-82db-33bde25c5e23 () github ! com
[Download RAW message or body]

On Fri, 28 Jul 2023 11:16:41 GMT, Alexander Zvegintsev <azvegint@openjdk.org> wrote:

> > There is no good way to put the comment straight into this block, AFAICS. Can we \
> > settle on repository history to tell future investigations why this was added?
> 
> How about using a variable with a useful name? e.g.:
> 
> `DISABLED_FOR_NOT_COMPLETE_COMPILER_CHECK := undef`
> ...
> 
> 
> DISABLED_WARNINGS_gcc_OGLPaints.c := format-nonliteral, \
> DISABLED_WARNINGS_gcc_screencast_pipewire.c := \
> $(DISABLED_FOR_NOT_COMPLETE_COMPILER_CHECK), \ \
> DISABLED_WARNINGS_gcc_screencast_portal.c := \
> $(DISABLED_FOR_NOT_COMPLETE_COMPILER_CHECK), \ \
> DISABLED_WARNINGS_gcc_sun_awt_X11_GtkFileDialogPeer.c := parentheses, \

Let's not over-complicate this? Most (all?) warning exclusions I saw were are added \
without checking for toolchain version. Limiting blast radius to just a toolchain and \
compilation unit seems good already.

-------------

PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/14995#discussion_r1277558524


[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]