Hi, I tried to use the IJG's contact page, but no joy. Seems broken; there a spinning icon when you hit "send", but nothing happens.
http://jpegclub.org/reference/contact/ So I used a slightly older mailing list on sourceforge. The request to update their code has been sent, and I hope it will appear on the mailing list soon. https://sourceforge.net/p/libjpeg/mailman/libjpeg-devel-6x/ However, that list seems fairly idle too. Does anyone know of another method we can use to communicate this fix upstream? Best Regards Adam > Re: [OpenJDK 2D-Dev] RFR(xxxs): 8200052: libjavajpeg: Fix compile warning in jchuff.cPhilip Race to: Adam Farley8 17/05/2018 03:32 > Cc: 2d-dev, Andrew Leonard, build-dev, Magnus Ihse Bursie, "Thomas Stüfe" > From: Philip Race <philip.r...@oracle.com> > To: Adam Farley8 <adam.far...@uk.ibm.com> > Cc: 2d-dev <2d-...@openjdk.java.net>, Andrew Leonard <andrew_m_leon...@uk.ibm.com>, build-dev <build-dev@openjdk.java.net>, Magnus Ihse Bursie <magnus.ihse.bur...@oracle.com>, "Thomas Stüfe" <thomas.stu...@gmail.com> > > > Hi, > > OK .. if you can convince upstream this is worth doing, then we can accept it > as we would not regress when updating. As I noted previously : > http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/2d-dev/2018-March/009086.html > this is still an issue in the currently being developed 9c train. > > -phil. > > On 5/14/18, 3:06 AM, Adam Farley8 wrote: > 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 > 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
