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

List:       openjdk-serviceability-dev
Subject:    Re: RFR: 8310948: Fix ignored-qualifiers warning in Hotspot
From:       Daniel =?UTF-8?B?SmVsacWEc2tp?= <djelinski () openjdk ! org>
Date:       2023-06-30 14:31:54
Message-ID: MM7P4dViyFokzuGnm8t7YhywSW2w6gWT7LnjNPWYHI4=.88dc1236-9ad5-439e-8585-adea24b7a6f8 () github ! com
[Download RAW message or body]

On Tue, 27 Jun 2023 12:22:43 GMT, Daniel Jeliński <djelinski@openjdk.org> wrote:

> Please review this attempt to fix ignored-qualifiers warning.
> 
> Example warnings:
> 
> src/hotspot/share/oops/method.hpp:413:19: warning: 'volatile' type qualifier on \
> return type has no effect [-Wignored-qualifiers] CompiledMethod* volatile code() \
> const; ^~~~~~~~~
> 
> 
> src/hotspot/share/jfr/periodic/jfrModuleEvent.cpp:65:20: warning: type qualifiers \
> ignored on cast result type [-Wignored-qualifiers] 65 |   event.set_source((const \
> ModuleEntry* const)from_module); |                    \
> ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 
> 
> The proposed fix removes the ignored qualifiers.
> In a few AD files I replaced `const` with `constexpr` where I noticed that the \
> method is returning a compile-time constant, and other platforms use `constexpr` on \
> the same method. 
> Release, debug and slowdebug builds on Aarch64 / x64 and Mac / Linux complete \
> without errors. Cross-compile GHA builds also pass.

Can I get another +1 on this? or should I proceed with splitting?

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

PR Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/14674#issuecomment-1614738114


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