On 12/22/2011 3:52 AM, Alan Bateman wrote:
On 22/12/2011 01:51, Stuart Marks wrote:
I dug up a bit of background on this. Apparently Sasha ran across
this problem back in July and asked about this on net-dev [1].
Discussion continued on build-dev [2]. Kurchi later picked up this
work and after some discussion got it integrated [3].
I didn't see Sasha's original webrev, but he might have fixed all the
warnings in the java.net package, enabled -Werror in
make/java/net/Makefile, and then was surprised to find that this
build step was (implicitly) compiling files that weren't in the
java.net package. Kurchi's fix [3] apparently fixed warnings in these
other files as well before enabling -Werror.
In my proposal to add -Werror, I've ensured that specific runs of
javac to which -Werror will be added actually have no warnings at
all, whether in implicitly or explicitly listed files.
I'm also not entirely clear what's meant by "partial" and
"incremental" builds. I've been doing clean builds, but only in the
jdk repo. Is this a "partial" build, as opposed to a full forest or
"control" build? I'm doing one of those now and I'll certainly
correct any issues that arise because of -Werror.
Or, is a "partial" build what happens if one descends into a make
subdirectory, e.g. jdk/make/java/net, and calls "make" from there? I
haven't been doing that. Should I?
Still trying to figure out what I need to do to move this forward.
Just on terminology, when I use the term "partial" build then I meant
building a subset of the repositories with an import JDK providing the
per-built bits from the other repositories. I think this is what most
folks working in the jdk repository do, at least in Oracle.
Incremental builds are where folks go into specific directories and
run the make file so that it re-builds just the changed sources for
that area. It's far from perfect, requires local knowledge, at least
one amulet, but critical to productivity when working in the jdk
repository.
Anyway, I think you've been digging in the right place. Warnings were
fixed and builds completed successfully but then later we found cases
where areas hadn't been completely cleared of mines. This is not a
criticism of Sasha's great work, it's just that they slipped through
because classes were compiled implicitly by something earlier in the
build. This is just one reason to look forward to the new build.
As to moving this forward. If you are happy that these areas are
completely warning free then I think we are happy and you should push
the changes.
As an aside, I've thought it was a bit of design error that implicit
compilation was the default.
Since JDK 6 there has been a javac option that can be used to disable
implicit compilation, -implicit:none.
Perhaps this option could be used in some portion of the JDK build.
-Joe
