On Tue, 22 Oct 2024 18:03:12 GMT, Chris Plummer <[email protected]> wrote:
>> After 8339120, gcc began catching many different instances of unused code in
>> the Windows specific codebase. Some of these seem to be bugs. I've taken the
>> effort to mark out all the relevant globals and locals that trigger the
>> unused warnings and addressed all of them by commenting out the code as
>> appropriate. I am confident that in many cases this simplistic approach of
>> commenting out code does not fix the underlying issue, and the warning
>> actually found a bug that should be fixed. In these instances, I will be
>> aiming to fix these bugs with help from reviewers, so I recommend anyone
>> reviewing who knows more about the code than I do to see whether there is
>> indeed a bug that needs fixing in a different way than what I did
>
> src/jdk.jdi/windows/native/libdt_shmem/shmem_md.c line 47:
>
>> 45: {
>> 46: void *mappedMemory;
>> 47: // HANDLE memHandle;
>
> Why comment out this one but not the one at line 88? It seems they are both
> equally problematic and are hiding the static memHandle. I'm not sure why the
> 2nd one isn't flagged. I'd actually suggest getting rid of the static
> memHandle. It does not seem to be needed.
I wasn't sure whether the global memHandle not being used was a bug, so I
commented out the local one. I missed the line 88 one because it wasn't
flagged. If it really isn't needed I'll remove that one instead
> src/jdk.jdwp.agent/share/native/libjdwp/log_messages.c line 53:
>
>> 51: #ifndef _WIN32
>> 52: static MUTEX_T my_mutex = MUTEX_INIT;
>> 53: #endif
>
> The reason for no reference on windows is because of the following on windows:
>
>
> #define MUTEX_LOCK(x) /* FIXUP? */
> #define MUTEX_UNLOCK(x) /* FIXUP? */
>
>
> So looks like this mutex support is something we never got around to. I think
> your current workaround is fine.
I'm curious now, how to implement mutex support on Windows? I think I prefer
that to just making it completely unavailable on Windows
-------------
PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/21616#discussion_r1811884490
PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/21616#discussion_r1811885815
