On Tue, 27 Sep 2022 10:43:25 GMT, Aleksey Shipilev <sh...@openjdk.org> wrote:
>> I ran all {x86_32, x86_64, aarch64, arm, powerpc64le, arm, riscv64} x
>> {server} x {release,fastdebug} with GCC 10, and these are the new additions:
>>
>>
>> diff --git a/make/common/MakeBase.gmk b/make/common/MakeBase.gmk
>> index fa1d44396df..915b175a649 100644
>> --- a/make/common/MakeBase.gmk
>> +++ b/make/common/MakeBase.gmk
>> @@ -195,7 +195,7 @@ $(eval $(call SetupLogging))
>>
>>
>> ################################################################################
>>
>> -MAX_PARAMS := 64
>> +MAX_PARAMS := 96
>> PARAM_SEQUENCE := $(call sequence, 2, $(MAX_PARAMS))
>>
>> # Template for creating a macro taking named parameters. To use it, assign
>> the
>> diff --git a/make/hotspot/lib/CompileJvm.gmk
>> b/make/hotspot/lib/CompileJvm.gmk
>> index ca38551c67d..7c37d5e2929 100644
>> --- a/make/hotspot/lib/CompileJvm.gmk
>> +++ b/make/hotspot/lib/CompileJvm.gmk
>> @@ -85,7 +85,7 @@ CFLAGS_VM_VERSION := \
>>
>> DISABLED_WARNINGS_gcc := ignored-qualifiers comment int-in-bool-context \
>> array-bounds implicit-fallthrough parentheses
>> missing-field-initializers \
>> - delete-non-virtual-dtor unknown-pragmas maybe-uninitialized
>> + delete-non-virtual-dtor unknown-pragmas maybe-uninitialized
>> shift-negative-value
>>
>> DISABLED_WARNINGS_clang := ignored-qualifiers sometimes-uninitialized \
>> missing-braces delete-non-abstract-non-virtual-dtor unknown-pragmas
>> @@ -162,9 +162,16 @@ $(eval $(call SetupJdkLibrary, BUILD_LIBJVM, \
>> DISABLED_WARNINGS_gcc_loopnode.cpp := sequence-point, \
>> DISABLED_WARNINGS_gcc_macroArrayCopy.cpp := shift-negative-value, \
>> DISABLED_WARNINGS_gcc_mulnode.cpp := shift-negative-value, \
>> + DISABLED_WARNINGS_gcc_ad_ppc.cpp := empty-body, \
>> DISABLED_WARNINGS_gcc_postaloc.cpp := address, \
>> DISABLED_WARNINGS_gcc_sharedRuntimeTrig.cpp := misleading-indentation, \
>> + DISABLED_WARNINGS_gcc_shenandoahBarrierSetAssembler_aarch64.cpp :=
>> misleading-indentation, \
>> + DISABLED_WARNINGS_gcc_shenandoahBarrierSetAssembler_ppc.cpp :=
>> misleading-indentation, \
>> + DISABLED_WARNINGS_gcc_shenandoahBarrierSetAssembler_riscv.cpp :=
>> misleading-indentation, \
>> DISABLED_WARNINGS_gcc_shenandoahBarrierSetAssembler_x86.cpp :=
>> misleading-indentation, \
>> + DISABLED_WARNINGS_gcc_shenandoahBarrierSetC1_aarch64.cpp :=
>> misleading-indentation, \
>> + DISABLED_WARNINGS_gcc_shenandoahBarrierSetC1_ppc.cpp :=
>> misleading-indentation, \
>> + DISABLED_WARNINGS_gcc_shenandoahBarrierSetC1_riscv.cpp :=
>> misleading-indentation, \
>> DISABLED_WARNINGS_gcc_shenandoahBarrierSetC1_x86.cpp :=
>> misleading-indentation, \
>> DISABLED_WARNINGS_gcc_shenandoahBarrierSetC1.cpp :=
>> misleading-indentation, \
>> DISABLED_WARNINGS_gcc_signals_posix.cpp := cast-function-type, \
>>
>>
>> Unfortunately, in s390x case, the warning is in `assembler_s390.hpp`, which
>> means a lot of compilation units fail. Therefore I introduced
>> `shift-negative-value` back. I did not remove the per-file
>> `shift-negative-value`-s, though.
>>
>> I shall deal with `misleading-indentation` the coding that produces these
>> warnings some time later, maybe even ahead of this PR.
>
>> I shall deal with `misleading-indentation` the coding that produces these
>> warnings some time later, maybe even ahead of this PR.
>
> This would be #10444. We can integrate them in whatever order.
@shipilev The code history will probably be more straightforward if your fix
goes in first. There's no real hurry with this one.
-------------
PR: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/10414
