On 2018-04-16 12:58, Adam Farley8 wrote:
I also advocate the source code fix, as Make isn't meant to use the
sort of logic required
to properly analyse the toolchain version string.
e.g. An "eq" match on 4.8.5 doesn't protect the user who is using
4.8.6, and Make doesn't
seem to do substring stuff unless you mess around with shells.
Plus, as people have said, it's better to solve problem x (or work
around a specific
instance of x) than to ignore the exception, even if the ignoring code
is toolchain-
specific.
- Adam Farley
> On 2018-03-27 18:44, Phil Race wrote:
>
>> As I said I prefer the make file change, since this is a change to an
upstream library.
>
> Newtons fourth law: For every reviewer, there's an equal and opposite
reviewer. :)
>
> Here I am, advocating a source code fix. As Thomas says, the compiler
complaint seems reasonable, and disabling it might cause us to miss
other future errors.
>
> Why can't we push the source code fix, and also submit it upstream?
>
> /Magnus
>
>
> I've looked at jpeg-9c and it still looks identical to what we have in 6b,
so this code
> seems to have stood the test of time. I'm also unclear why the compiler would
> complain about that and not the one a few lines later
>
>
> 819 while (bits[i] == 0) /* find largest codelength still in
use */
> 820 i--;
>
> A push to jchuff.c will get blown away if/when we upgrade.
> A tool-chain specific fix in the makefile with an appropriate comment
is more targeted.
Phil,
Returning to this.
While I understand your reluctance to patch upstream code, let me point
out that we have not updated libjpeg a single time since the JDK was
open sourced. We're using 6b from 27-Mar-1998. I had a look at the
Wikipedia page on libjpeg, and this is the latest "uncontroversial"
version of the source. Versions 7 and up have proprietary extensions,
which in turn has resulted in multiple forks of libjpeg. As it stands,
it seems unlikely that we will ever replace libjpeg 6b with a simple
upgrade from upstream.
I therefore maintain my position that a source code fix would be the
best way forward here.
/Magnus
>
>
> -phil.
>
>
> On 03/27/2018 05:44 AM, Thomas Stüfe wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
>
> just a friendly reminder. I would like to push this tiny fix because
tripping over this on our linux s390x builds is annoying (yes, we can
maintain patch queues, but this is a constant error source).
>
>
> I will wait for 24 more hours until a reaction. If no serious objections are
forcoming, I want to push it (tier1 tests ran thru, and me and
Christoph langer are both Reviewers).
>
>
> Thanks! Thomas
>
>
> On Wed, Mar 21, 2018 at 6:20 PM, Thomas Stüfe <thomas.stu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
>
> may I please have another review for this really trivial change. It fixes a
gcc warning on s390 and ppc. Also, it is probably a good idea to fix
this.
>
>
> bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8200052
> webrev:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~stuefe/webrevs/8200052-fix-warning-in-jchuff.c/webrev.00/webrev/
<http://cr.openjdk.java.net/%7Estuefe/webrevs/8200052-fix-warning-in-jchuff.c/webrev.00/webrev/>
>
>
> This was contributed by Adam Farley at IBM.
>
>
> I already reviewed this. I also test-built on zlinux and it works.
>
>
> Thanks, Thomas
>
Unless stated otherwise above:
IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with
number 741598.
Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6 3AU
