On 2018-12-12 14:29, Baesken, Matthias wrote:
I'd recommend a separate change to remove the -xc99=%none%. That's
trivial and can be done immediately, to the benefit of everyone. Getting
C++14 working is not happening quickly.
Ok, do you prefer just removing the old setting or setting
https://docs.oracle.com/cd/E37069_01/html/E37074/bjapp.html#OSSCGgnjmw
–std=value (–std=c99)
?
Best regards, Matthias
Erm, I don't know. :-) No preference, really. But setting -std=c99 is
fine, I think.
/Magnus
-----Original Message-----
From: Magnus Ihse Bursie <magnus.ihse.bur...@oracle.com>
Sent: Mittwoch, 12. Dezember 2018 14:22
To: Baesken, Matthias <matthias.baes...@sap.com>; David Holmes
<david.hol...@oracle.com>; Erik Joelsson <erik.joels...@oracle.com>;
'build-dev@openjdk.java.net' <build-dev@openjdk.java.net>; Kim Barrett
<kim.barr...@oracle.com>
Subject: Re: disabled c99 in Solaris builds
On 2018-12-12 09:24, Baesken, Matthias wrote:
FWIW, in my in-development patch set for JEP 347
(https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8208089)
the -xc99=%none% option has been removed and -std=c99 added (for C
code). (C++14 includes C99 by reference, so I made that change for
consistency in case there were any ABI differences.)
Hello Kim , do you have an estimation when your patch will be in ?
Or would you suggest to do a separate change and bring in into jdk/jdk
(and jdk12) already?
I'd recommend a separate change to remove the -xc99=%none%. That's
trivial and can be done immediately, to the benefit of everyone. Getting
C++14 working is not happening quickly.
/Magnus
Best regards, Matthias
-----Original Message-----
From: David Holmes <david.hol...@oracle.com>
Sent: Dienstag, 11. Dezember 2018 23:16
To: Erik Joelsson <erik.joels...@oracle.com>; Baesken, Matthias
<matthias.baes...@sap.com>; 'build-dev@openjdk.java.net' <build-
d...@openjdk.java.net>
Subject: Re: disabled c99 in Solaris builds
On 12/12/2018 3:27 am, Erik Joelsson wrote:
Hello,
I do not know why this flag was introduced, but it has been there for a
long time. In JDK7 it's listed in jdk/make/common/Defs-solaris.gmk:
# -xc99=%none Do NOT allow for c99 extensions to be used.
# e.g. declarations must precede statements
and was there since the first mercurial change.
I can reasonably imagine that this was added to prevent introducing
shared code, developed on Solaris, that would not compile on Windows.
But those days are long gone.
I was bitten by this just this week when an enum declaration compiled
fine everywhere but Solaris!
I personally wouldn't mind ditching it.
+1
David
/Erik
On 2018-12-11 08:17, Baesken, Matthias wrote:
Hello , it seems that currently the Solaris Oracle Studio Build
environment is the only one that explicitly
forbids C99 C code by setting -xc99=%none .
The current Linux/Mac/AIX/Windows build envs had no issues with the
coding.
For example I was running into an error with the C variable
declaration order issue (small example below) today in my coding.
Is this still a wanted behavior ? What was the reason behind setting
-xc99=%none , and is the reason still valid ?
I remember we had issues with C99 compatibility back then when
VS2010
was used on Windows, but I think these days we use VS2013+, is this
correct ?
The example program mixes declarations and "other statements" ,
which needs C99, I compile with Oracle Studio 12u4 .
/compiler/SS12u4-Oct2017/SUNWspro/bin/cc vardecl.c -o vardecl
No settings -> works nicely
- with C99 disabled as OpenJDK does :
----------------------------------------------------------
/compiler/SS12u4-Oct2017/SUNWspro/bin/cc -xc99=%none vardecl.c -
o
vardecl
"vardecl.c", line 8: warning: declaration can not follow a statement
- with C99 disabled + errwarn as OpenJDK does :
------------------------------------------------------------------------
/compiler/SS12u4-Oct2017/SUNWspro/bin/cc -xc99=%none -
errwarn=%all
vardecl.c -o vardecl
"vardecl.c", line 8: declaration can not follow a statement
cc: acomp failed for vardecl.c
example program :
---------------------------------------
bash-3.2$ more vardecl.c
#include <stdio.h>
int main(void) {
int a = 0;
printf("a: %d \n", a);
int b = 1;
printf("b: %d \n", b);
return 0;
}
Best regards, Matthias
