On Tue, May 19, 2026 at 1:10 AM Johan Corveleyn <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Tue, May 19, 2026 at 12:53 AM Johan Corveleyn <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On Mon, May 4, 2026 at 4:19 AM <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > Author: brane > > > Date: Mon May 4 02:19:20 2026 > > > New Revision: 1933796 > > > > > > Log: > > > Silence JavaHL compiler warnings about missing bootstrap classpath. > > > Use the --release option instead of -source and -target if the Java > > > compiler supports it. > > > > > > * build/ac-macros/java.m4 > > > (SVN_FIND_JDK): Check the javac version and adjust flags accordingly. > > > If debugging is enabled, silence warnings about the target JVM version > > > 8 (1.8) being deprecated. > > > > > > Modified: > > > subversion/trunk/build/ac-macros/java.m4 > > > > > > Modified: subversion/trunk/build/ac-macros/java.m4 > > > ============================================================================== > > > --- subversion/trunk/build/ac-macros/java.m4 Mon May 4 00:35:48 2026 > > > (r1933795) > > > +++ subversion/trunk/build/ac-macros/java.m4 Mon May 4 02:19:20 2026 > > > (r1933796) > > > @@ -166,12 +166,27 @@ AC_DEFUN(SVN_FIND_JDK, > > > # The release for "-source" could actually be greater than that > > > # of "-target", if we want to cross-compile for lesser JVMs. > > > if test -z "$JAVAC_FLAGS"; then > > > - JAVAC_FLAGS="-target $JAVA_OLDEST_WORKING_VER -source 1.8" > > > + java_version=[`"$JDK/bin/javac" -version 2>&1 | $SED -e > > > 's/^[^0-9]*//' -e 's/\.[^.]*$//'`] > > > + java_major=[`echo $java_version | $SED -e 's/\.[^.]*$//'`] > > > + java_minor=[`echo $java_version | $SED -e 's/^[^.]*\.//'`] > > > + if test "$java_major" -eq 1 && test "$java_minor" -lt 9; then > > > + JAVAC_FLAGS="-target $JAVA_OLDEST_WORKING_VER -source 1.8" > > > + else > > > + java_release=[`echo $JAVA_OLDEST_WORKING_VER | $SED -e > > > 's/^[^.]*\.//'`] > > > + JAVAC_FLAGS="--release $java_release" > > > > The sed pattern looks a bit tricky to me, it will only work as long as > > $JAVA_OLDEST_WORKING_VER is of the form 1.x, or if there would be no > > '.' at all. > > > > I see this value is only set in configure.ac: > > [[[ > > # The minimum version for the JVM runtime for our Java bytecode. > > JAVA_OLDEST_WORKING_VER='1.8' > > # SVN_CHECK_JDK sets $JAVA_CLASSPATH > > SVN_CHECK_JDK($JAVA_OLDEST_WORKING_VER) > > ]]] > > > > I suppose whoever updates this someday will put '11' or '21' in there, > > and not '11.0' or somesuch, but who knows. > > > > Maybe (only converting 1.x to x): > > java_release=[`echo $JAVA_OLDEST_WORKING_VER | $SED -e 's/^1\.//'`] > > ?
Doh, you changed this in r1933892, so after that it looks perfect. I should read all your backport proposals one after the other in the future :-). (with that I've converted my -1 to +1 for this backport) > > > > > + fi > > > + > > > if test "$enable_debugging" = "yes"; then > > > JAVAC_FLAGS="-g -Xlint -Xlint:unchecked -Xlint:serial > > > -Xlint:path $JAVAC_FLAGS" > > > if test -z "$JAVAC_COMPAT_FLAGS"; then > > > JAVAC_COMPAT_FLAGS="$JAVAC_FLAGS -Xlint:-unchecked > > > -Xlint:-deprecation -Xlint:-dep-ann -Xlint:-rawtypes" > > > fi > > > + else > > > + dnl Ignore warnings about deprecated version 8 (from --release 8) > > > + JAVAC_FLAGS="-Xlint:options" > > > + if test -z "$JAVAC_COMPAT_FLAGS"; then > > > + JAVAC_COMPAT_FLAGS="$JAVAC_FLAGS" > > > + fi > > > > I'm a bit confused. In the commit message you said: "If debugging is > > enabled, silence warnings about the target JVM version 8 (1.8) being > > deprecated.". But the change above is in the else branch of checking > > for $enable_debugging. Did you mean to say "If debugging is *not* > > enabled" in your commit message? > > > > Or ... IIUC -Xlint:options does warn about problems with command line > > options. From "javac --help-lint" (with openjdk 21): > > options Warn about issues relating to use of command > > line options. > > > > So perhaps here you intentionally enable warnings for "options" when > > debugging is not enabled (and leave it to the recommended lint options > > + (unchecked, serial, path) if debugging is enabled)? > > Ah, upon further crawling through the backport proposals I saw you > changed this some more in r1933877. After that, I think it makes more > sense. Still, I'd like to understand whether you wanted to suppress > this warning for debug (as your commit message of r1933796 seems to > say) or for non-debug mode (as r1933877 seems to implement) :-). -- Johan
