Hi Phil, Would an acceptable compromise be to deliver the source code change and send the code to the upstream community, allowing them to include the fix if/when they are able?
I believe Magnus was advocating this idea as well. See below. Best Regards Adam Farley > Same here. I would like to have this fix in, but do not want to go > over Phils head. > > I think Phil was the main objector, maybe he could reconsider?` > > Thanks, Thomas > > On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 10:39 AM, Magnus Ihse Bursie > <magnus.ihse.bur...@oracle.com> wrote: > > I don't object, but it's not build code so I don't have the final say. > > > > /Magnus > > > > > > On 2018-04-25 17:43, Adam Farley8 wrote: > > > > Hi All, > > > > Does anyone have an objection to pushing this tiny change in? > > > > It doesn't break anything, it fixes a build break on two supported > > platforms, and it seems > > like we never refresh the code from upstream. > > > > - Adam > > > >> 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/ > >> > > >> > > >> > 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 > >> > >> > > > > 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 > > > > 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