Re: [OpenJDK 2D-Dev] RFR: Bug Pending: Build fails to compile jchuff.c

[Thomas Stüfe]

 Hi all,

Last week I openend JDK-8200052 and posted it to 2d-dev for RFR.

Me included we have two reviewers and the tier1 tests ran through. Are
there really any serious objections against pushing this tiny fix? It would
make life for us (working on zLinux) easier.

I will wait for 24 more hours until a reaction. If no serious objections
are forthcoming, I will push it.

Thanks! Thomas


On Thu, Mar 22, 2018 at 10:57 AM, Adam Farley8 
wrote:

> Hi Guys,
>
> I've provided a gcc-specific fix in the makefile to prevent the warning.
>
> -- Awt2dLibraries.gmk:471 --
> DISABLED_WARNINGS_gcc := *array-bounds* clobbered implicit-fallthrough
> shift-negative-value, \
>
> I've also provided an underflow fix in the .c file to fix the problem
> *causing* the warning.
>
> -- jchuff.c:808 --
> while (*(*bits[j] == 0)* && (j > 0)*)
>
> Either will work fine.
>
> Note: After determining that it affects multiple gcc versions, and that
> the logic to make a makefile do a
> compare (the shell business) on the gcc version seemed hacky to me, I
> considered the best solution
> to be one of the two simple fixes outlined above. This seemed to be
> acceptable to people in the
> community, yet we're still having trouble getting this fix through.
>
> I'm not sure why.
>
> Best Regards
>
> Adam Farley
>
>
> > Hi Phil!
> >
> >
> > thanks for pointing out the history, I was not aware of that.
> >
> >
> > I looked at that huffman coding and tried to determine whether the
> underflow may happen in real life scenarios. I could at least not exclude
> that possibility. I looked thru the mailing list threads - did someone
> analyse and conclude for sure this was just a pointless compiler warning?
> >
> >
> > I would prefer the pragmatic solution (and IMHO also safer one) of
> fixing this underflow in the proposed fashion. I had opened a bug report
> earlier today. However, if someone already spent brain cycles on it and a
> patch - in whatever form - is forthcoming, I do not want to butt in. In
> that case I will close this bug again.
> >
> >
> > I would just like to see this fixed this because it affects us at SAP
> too.
> >
> >
> > Kind Regards, Thomas
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Mar 21, 2018 at 6:56 PM, Phil Race 
> wrote:
> >
> > I prefer the makefile fix, since we don't by policy, make changes to the
> imported libraries.
> >
> > On Jan 23rd [1] I expressed such a tool-chain specific makefile fix
> would be fine by me.
> >
> > Toolchain specific means ideally it would look like what Magnus wrote [2]
> >
> > Although you said GC 5.4.0 would need to be included in the logic.
> >
> > If it can be shown to affect current / future versions of gcc then it
> could be unqualified.
> >
> > I think we've just been waiting for a webrev since then ..
> >
> > -phil.
> >
> > [1] http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/2d-dev/2018-January/
> 008855.html
> > [2] http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/build-dev/2018-
> January/020695.html
> >
> >
> >
> > On 03/21/2018 09:53 AM, Adam Farley8 wrote:
> >
> > :)
> >
> > > Hi Adam,
> > >
> > > no problem. I'll open a bug and if necessary find a second reviewer.
> Thanks for fixing, maybe I can stop building with warnings disabled on our
> s390 machines now.
> > >
> > > ..Thomas
> > >
> > > > On Wed, Mar 21, 2018 at 5:10 PM, Andrew Leonard <
> andrew_m_leon...@uk.ibm.com> wrote:
> > > > Hi Thomas,
> > > > I'm a "contributor", but not a "committer", so not on that list,
> didn't even know that
> > > > list existed! I was sort of assuming since it was a trivial change,
> and the request was
> > > > for a review, i'd chip in...!
> > > > Thanks
> > > > Andrew
> > >
> > > > Andrew Leonard
> > > > Java Runtimes Development
> > > > IBM Hursley
> > > > IBM United Kingdom Ltd
> > > > Phone internal: 245913, external: 01962 815913
> > > > internet email: andrew_m_leon...@uk.ibm.com
> > >
> >
>
> 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
>

Re: [OpenJDK 2D-Dev] RFR: Bug Pending: Build fails to compile jchuff.c

[Adam Farley8]

Hi Guys,

I've provided a gcc-specific fix in the makefile to prevent the warning.

-- Awt2dLibraries.gmk:471 --
DISABLED_WARNINGS_gcc := array-bounds clobbered implicit-fallthrough 
shift-negative-value, \

I've also provided an underflow fix in the .c file to fix the problem 
*causing* the warning.

-- jchuff.c:808 --
while ((bits[j] == 0) && (j > 0))

Either will work fine.

Note: After determining that it affects multiple gcc versions, and that 
the logic to make a makefile do a 
compare (the shell business) on the gcc version seemed hacky to me, I 
considered the best solution
to be one of the two simple fixes outlined above. This seemed to be 
acceptable to people in the
community, yet we're still having trouble getting this fix through. 

I'm not sure why.

Best Regards 

Adam Farley


> Hi Phil!
> 
> 
> thanks for pointing out the history, I was not aware of that.
> 
> 
> I looked at that huffman coding and tried to determine whether the 
underflow may happen in real life scenarios. I could at least not exclude 
that possibility. I looked thru the mailing list threads - did someone 
analyse and conclude for sure this was just a pointless compiler warning?
> 
> 
> I would prefer the pragmatic solution (and IMHO also safer one) of 
fixing this underflow in the proposed fashion. I had opened a bug report 
earlier today. However, if someone already spent brain cycles on it and a 
patch - in whatever form - is forthcoming, I do not want to butt in. In 
that case I will close this bug again. 
> 
> 
> I would just like to see this fixed this because it affects us at SAP 
too.
> 
> 
> Kind Regards, Thomas
> 
> 
> On Wed, Mar 21, 2018 at 6:56 PM, Phil Race  
wrote:
> 
> I prefer the makefile fix, since we don't by policy, make changes to the 
imported libraries.
> 
> On Jan 23rd [1] I expressed such a tool-chain specific makefile fix 
would be fine by me.
> 
> Toolchain specific means ideally it would look like what Magnus wrote 
[2]
> 
> Although you said GC 5.4.0 would need to be included in the logic.
> 
> If it can be shown to affect current / future versions of gcc then it 
could be unqualified.
> 
> I think we've just been waiting for a webrev since then ..
> 
> -phil.
> 
> [1] 
http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/2d-dev/2018-January/008855.html
> [2] 
http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/build-dev/2018-January/020695.html
> 
> 
> 
> On 03/21/2018 09:53 AM, Adam Farley8 wrote:
> 
> :) 
> 
> > Hi Adam, 
> > 
> > no problem. I'll open a bug and if necessary find a second reviewer. 
Thanks for fixing, maybe I can stop building with warnings disabled on our 
s390 machines now. 
> > 
> > ..Thomas 
> > 
> > > On Wed, Mar 21, 2018 at 5:10 PM, Andrew Leonard 
 wrote: 
> > > Hi Thomas, 
> > > I'm a "contributor", but not a "committer", so not on that list, 
didn't even know that 
> > > list existed! I was sort of assuming since it was a trivial change, 
and the request was 
> > > for a review, i'd chip in...! 
> > > Thanks 
> > > Andrew 
> > 
> > > Andrew Leonard 
> > > Java Runtimes Development 
> > > IBM Hursley 
> > > IBM United Kingdom Ltd 
> > > Phone internal: 245913, external: 01962 815913 
> > > internet email: andrew_m_leon...@uk.ibm.com 
> > 
> 

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

Re: [OpenJDK 2D-Dev] RFR: Bug Pending: Build fails to compile jchuff.c

[Thomas Stüfe]

Hi Phil!

thanks for pointing out the history, I was not aware of that.

I looked at that huffman coding and tried to determine whether the
underflow may happen in real life scenarios. I could at least not exclude
that possibility. I looked thru the mailing list threads - did someone
analyse and conclude for sure this was just a pointless compiler warning?

I would prefer the pragmatic solution (and IMHO also safer one) of fixing
this underflow in the proposed fashion. I had opened a bug report earlier
today. However, if someone already spent brain cycles on it and a patch -
in whatever form - is forthcoming, I do not want to butt in. In that case I
will close this bug again.

I would just like to see this fixed this because it affects us at SAP too.

Kind Regards, Thomas



On Wed, Mar 21, 2018 at 6:56 PM, Phil Race  wrote:

> I prefer the makefile fix, since we don't by policy, make changes to the
> imported libraries.
>
> On Jan 23rd [1] I expressed such a tool-chain specific makefile fix would
> be fine by me.
>
> Toolchain specific means ideally it would look like what Magnus wrote [2]
>
> Although you said GC 5.4.0 would need to be included in the logic.
>
> If it can be shown to affect current / future versions of gcc then it
> could be unqualified.
>
> I think we've just been waiting for a webrev since then ..
>
> -phil.
>
> [1] http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/2d-dev/2018-January/008855.html
> [2] http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/build-dev/2018-
> January/020695.html
>
>
> On 03/21/2018 09:53 AM, Adam Farley8 wrote:
>
> :)
>
> > Hi Adam,
> >
> > no problem. I'll open a bug and if necessary find a second reviewer.
> Thanks for fixing, maybe I can stop building with warnings disabled on our
> s390 machines now.
> >
> > ..Thomas
> >
> > > On Wed, Mar 21, 2018 at 5:10 PM, Andrew Leonard
>   wrote:
> > > Hi Thomas,
> > > I'm a "contributor", but not a "committer", so not on that list,
> didn't even know that
> > > list existed! I was sort of assuming since it was a trivial change,
> and the request was
> > > for a review, i'd chip in...!
> > > Thanks
> > > Andrew
> >
> > > Andrew Leonard
> > > Java Runtimes Development
> > > IBM Hursley
> > > IBM United Kingdom Ltd
> > > Phone internal: 245913, external: 01962 815913
> > > internet email: andrew_m_leon...@uk.ibm.com
> >
>
> 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
>
>
>

Re: [OpenJDK 2D-Dev] RFR: Bug Pending: Build fails to compile jchuff.c

[Phil Race]

I prefer the makefile fix, since we don't by policy, make changes to the 
imported libraries.


On Jan 23rd [1] I expressed such a tool-chain specific makefile fix 
would be fine by me.


Toolchain specific means ideally it would look like what Magnus wrote [2]

Although you said GC 5.4.0 would need to be included in the logic.

If it can be shown to affect current / future versions of gcc then it 
could be unqualified.


I think we've just been waiting for a webrev since then ..

-phil.

[1] http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/2d-dev/2018-January/008855.html
[2] 
http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/build-dev/2018-January/020695.html


On 03/21/2018 09:53 AM, Adam Farley8 wrote:

:)

> Hi Adam,
> 
> no problem. I'll open a bug and if necessary find a second reviewer. 
Thanks for fixing, maybe I can stop building with warnings disabled on 
our s390 machines now.
> 
> ..Thomas
> 
> > On Wed, Mar 21, 2018 at 5:10 PM, Andrew Leonard 
 wrote:

> > Hi Thomas,
> > I'm a "contributor", but not a "committer", so not on that list, didn't 
even know that
> > list existed! I was sort of assuming since it was a trivial change, 
and the request was

> > for a review, i'd chip in...!
> > Thanks
> > Andrew
> 
> > Andrew Leonard

> > Java Runtimes Development
> > IBM Hursley
> > IBM United Kingdom Ltd
> > Phone internal: 245913, external: 01962 815913
> > internet email: andrew_m_leon...@uk.ibm.com
> 


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

Re: [OpenJDK 2D-Dev] RFR: Bug Pending: Build fails to compile jchuff.c

[Adam Farley8]

:)

> Hi Adam,
> 
> no problem. I'll open a bug and if necessary find a second reviewer. 
Thanks for fixing, maybe I can stop building with warnings disabled on our 
s390 machines now.
> 
> ..Thomas
> 
> > On Wed, Mar 21, 2018 at 5:10 PM, Andrew Leonard 
 wrote:
> > Hi Thomas, 
> > I'm a "contributor", but not a "committer", so not on that list, 
didn't even know that 
> > list existed! I was sort of assuming since it was a trivial change, 
and the request was 
> > for a review, i'd chip in...! 
> > Thanks 
> > Andrew 
> 
> > Andrew Leonard
> > Java Runtimes Development
> > IBM Hursley
> > IBM United Kingdom Ltd
> > Phone internal: 245913, external: 01962 815913
> > internet email: andrew_m_leon...@uk.ibm.com 
> 

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

Re: [OpenJDK 2D-Dev] RFR: Bug Pending: Build fails to compile jchuff.c

[Thomas Stüfe]

Hi Adam,

no problem. I'll open a bug and if necessary find a second reviewer. Thanks
for fixing, maybe I can stop building with warnings disabled on our s390
machines now.

..Thomas

On Wed, Mar 21, 2018 at 5:10 PM, Andrew Leonard <andrew_m_leon...@uk.ibm.com
> wrote:

> Hi Thomas,
> I'm a "contributor", but not a "committer", so not on that list, didn't
> even know that list existed! I was sort of assuming since it was a trivial
> change, and the request was for a review, i'd chip in...!
> Thanks
> Andrew
>
> Andrew Leonard
> Java Runtimes Development
> IBM Hursley
> IBM United Kingdom Ltd
> Phone internal: 245913, external: 01962 815913
> internet email: andrew_m_leon...@uk.ibm.com
>
>
>
>
> From:"Thomas Stüfe" <thomas.stu...@gmail.com>
> To:Adam Farley8 <adam.far...@uk.ibm.com>, Andrew Leonard <
> andrew_m_leon...@uk.ibm.com>
> Cc:    2d-dev <2d-dev@openjdk.java.net>
> Date:21/03/2018 15:42
> Subject:Re: [OpenJDK 2D-Dev] RFR: Bug Pending: Build fails to
> compile jchuff.c
> --
>
>
>
> Hi,
>
> @Andrew Leonard: Sorry, I cannot find your name in
> *http://openjdk.java.net/census#jdk*
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__openjdk.java.net_census-23jdk=DwMFaQ=jf_iaSHvJObTbx-siA1ZOg=NaV8Iy8Ld-vjpXZFDdTbgGlRTghGHnwM75wUPd5_NUQ=kcZh3qOR8252-m9B7RGsU-UHyhs0nzgwHrTgZZjTFCM=_Tm94F3a1MA8ZdTHRVOZKbYGTCH-yGr7lXYPxmM4Fks=>.
> Are you a jdk contributor/reviewer, and if yes, what is your user name?
>
> @openjdk 2d folks: I also need to know: does the 2d project have any
> special rules about who can push or can I just push (I am jdk reviewer,
> census name stuefe)?
>
> Also, if A.Leonard is not a valid reviewer, could I still push this under
> the "trivial" rule? The change is quite trivial :)
>
>
>
> Best,
>
> Thomas
>
>
>
> On Wed, Mar 21, 2018 at 4:17 PM, Adam Farley8 <*adam.far...@uk.ibm.com*
> <adam.far...@uk.ibm.com>> wrote:
> cc'ing Tom directly in case this fell into a digest.
>
> > I've reviewed it. The change looks good, it's a good programming
> practice while loop now :-)
> > Cheers
> > Andrew
> >
> > Andrew Leonard
> > Java Runtimes Development
> > IBM Hursley
> > IBM United Kingdom Ltd
> > Phone internal: 245913, external: 01962 815913
> > internet email: *andrew_m_leon...@uk.ibm.com*
> <andrew_m_leon...@uk.ibm.com>
> >
> > > Hi Tom,
> > >
> > > Much obliged. :)
> > >
> > > Any volunteers to be the 2nd reviewer?
> > >
> > > Best Regards
> > >
> > > Adam Farley
> > >
> > > > Hi Adam,
> > > >
> > > > this patch looks good. I can sponsor this for you if noone else
> steps up, but we need a second reviewer, preferably one from the 2d project.
> > > >
> > > > Best Regards, Thomas
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Mar 21, 2018 at 12:41 PM, Adam Farley8 <
> *adam.far...@uk.ibm.com* <adam.far...@uk.ibm.com>> wrote:
> > > > Hi All,
> > > >
> > > > If committers really don't want this code, we could always try
> fixing the code that the warning
> > > > is complaining about.
> > > >
> > > > -- Change 
> > > > ---
>
> > > > diff --git a/src/java.desktop/share/native/libjavajpeg/jchuff.c
> b/src/java.desktop/share/native/libjavajpeg/jchuff.c
> > > > --- a/src/java.desktop/share/native/libjavajpeg/jchuff.c
> > > > +++ b/src/java.desktop/share/native/libjavajpeg/jchuff.c
> > > > @@ -805,7 +805,7 @@
> > > >for (i = MAX_CLEN; i > 16; i--) {
> > > >  while (bits[i] > 0) {
> > > >j = i - 2;/* find length of new prefix to be
> used */
> > > > -  while (bits[j] == 0)
> > > > +  while ((bits[j] == 0) && (j > 0))
> > > >  j--;
> > > >
> > > >bits[i] -= 2; /* remove two symbols */
> > > > -- End of Change
> ---
> > > >
> > > > Again, it's a small, simple change that fixes a build break on two
> platforms.
> > > >
> > > > Either fix will solve this problem.
> > > >
> > > > Best Regards
> > > >
> > > > Adam Farley
> > > >
> > > > >

Re: [OpenJDK 2D-Dev] RFR: Bug Pending: Build fails to compile jchuff.c

[Andrew Leonard]

Hi Thomas,
I'm a "contributor", but not a "committer", so not on that list, didn't 
even know that list existed! I was sort of assuming since it was a trivial 
change, and the request was for a review, i'd chip in...!
Thanks
Andrew

Andrew Leonard
Java Runtimes Development
IBM Hursley
IBM United Kingdom Ltd
Phone internal: 245913, external: 01962 815913
internet email: andrew_m_leon...@uk.ibm.com 




From:   "Thomas Stüfe" <thomas.stu...@gmail.com>
To: Adam Farley8 <adam.far...@uk.ibm.com>, Andrew Leonard 
<andrew_m_leon...@uk.ibm.com>
Cc: 2d-dev <2d-dev@openjdk.java.net>
Date:   21/03/2018 15:42
Subject:Re: [OpenJDK 2D-Dev] RFR: Bug Pending: Build fails to 
compile jchuff.c



Hi,

@Andrew Leonard: Sorry, I cannot find your name in 
http://openjdk.java.net/census#jdk. Are you a jdk contributor/reviewer, 
and if yes, what is your user name?

@openjdk 2d folks: I also need to know: does the 2d project have any 
special rules about who can push or can I just push (I am jdk reviewer, 
census name stuefe)? 

Also, if A.Leonard is not a valid reviewer, could I still push this under 
the "trivial" rule? The change is quite trivial :)



Best,

Thomas



On Wed, Mar 21, 2018 at 4:17 PM, Adam Farley8 <adam.far...@uk.ibm.com> 
wrote:
cc'ing Tom directly in case this fell into a digest. 

> I've reviewed it. The change looks good, it's a good programming 
practice while loop now :-) 
> Cheers 
> Andrew 
> 
> Andrew Leonard 
> Java Runtimes Development 
> IBM Hursley 
> IBM United Kingdom Ltd 
> Phone internal: 245913, external: 01962 815913 
> internet email: andrew_m_leon...@uk.ibm.com 
> 
> > Hi Tom, 
> > 
> > Much obliged. :) 
> > 
> > Any volunteers to be the 2nd reviewer? 
> > 
> > Best Regards 
> > 
> > Adam Farley 
> > 
> > > Hi Adam, 
> > > 
> > > this patch looks good. I can sponsor this for you if noone else 
steps up, but we need a second reviewer, preferably one from the 2d 
project. 
> > > 
> > > Best Regards, Thomas 
> > > 
> > > On Wed, Mar 21, 2018 at 12:41 PM, Adam Farley8 <
adam.far...@uk.ibm.com> wrote: 
> > > Hi All, 
> > > 
> > > If committers really don't want this code, we could always try 
fixing the code that the warning 
> > > is complaining about. 
> > > 
> > > -- Change 
--- 
> > > diff --git a/src/java.desktop/share/native/libjavajpeg/jchuff.c 
b/src/java.desktop/share/native/libjavajpeg/jchuff.c 
> > > --- a/src/java.desktop/share/native/libjavajpeg/jchuff.c 
> > > +++ b/src/java.desktop/share/native/libjavajpeg/jchuff.c 
> > > @@ -805,7 +805,7 @@ 
> > >for (i = MAX_CLEN; i > 16; i--) { 
> > >  while (bits[i] > 0) { 
> > >j = i - 2;/* find length of new prefix to be 
used */ 
> > > -  while (bits[j] == 0) 
> > > +  while ((bits[j] == 0) && (j > 0)) 
> > >  j--; 
> > > 
> > >bits[i] -= 2; /* remove two symbols */ 
> > > -- End of Change 
--- 
> > > 
> > > Again, it's a small, simple change that fixes a build break on two 
platforms. 
> > > 
> > > Either fix will solve this problem. 
> > > 
> > > Best Regards 
> > > 
> > > Adam Farley 
> > > 
> > > > Hi All, 
> > > > 
> > > > I ask for a committer to add one word to 
make/lib/Awt2dLibraries.gmk to solve a build break. 
> > > > 
> > > > We need to go to line 495 and add array-bounds into the list of 
disabled warnings. 
> > > > 
> > > > So this: 
> > > > 
> > > > DISABLED_WARNINGS_gcc := clobbered implicit-fallthrough 
shift-negative-value, \ 
> > > > 
> > > > becomes this: 
> > > > 
> > > > DISABLED_WARNINGS_gcc := clobbered implicit-fallthrough 
shift-negative-value array-bounds, \ 
> > > > 
> > > > This fixes a build-breaking problem which occurs if you don't 
disable 
> > > > errors-as-warnings on zLinux or Linux for ppcle. 
> > > > 
> > > > Best Regards 
> > > > 
> > > > Adam Farley 
> > > > 
> > > > P.S. For further background, see this: 
> > > > 
http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/2d-dev/2018-March/008958.html 
> > > 
> > > 

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

Re: [OpenJDK 2D-Dev] RFR: Bug Pending: Build fails to compile jchuff.c

[Thomas Stüfe]

Hi,

@Andrew Leonard: Sorry, I cannot find your name in
http://openjdk.java.net/census#jdk. Are you a jdk contributor/reviewer, and
if yes, what is your user name?

@openjdk 2d folks: I also need to know: does the 2d project have any
special rules about who can push or can I just push (I am jdk reviewer,
census name stuefe)?

Also, if A.Leonard is not a valid reviewer, could I still push this under
the "trivial" rule? The change is quite trivial :)



Best,

Thomas



On Wed, Mar 21, 2018 at 4:17 PM, Adam Farley8 
wrote:

> cc'ing Tom directly in case this fell into a digest.
>
> > I've reviewed it. The change looks good, it's a good programming
> practice while loop now :-)
> > Cheers
> > Andrew
> >
> > Andrew Leonard
> > Java Runtimes Development
> > IBM Hursley
> > IBM United Kingdom Ltd
> > Phone internal: 245913, external: 01962 815913
> > internet email: andrew_m_leon...@uk.ibm.com
> >
> > > Hi Tom,
> > >
> > > Much obliged. :)
> > >
> > > Any volunteers to be the 2nd reviewer?
> > >
> > > Best Regards
> > >
> > > Adam Farley
> > >
> > > > Hi Adam,
> > > >
> > > > this patch looks good. I can sponsor this for you if noone else
> steps up, but we need a second reviewer, preferably one from the 2d project.
> > > >
> > > > Best Regards, Thomas
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Mar 21, 2018 at 12:41 PM, Adam Farley8 <
> adam.far...@uk.ibm.com> wrote:
> > > > Hi All,
> > > >
> > > > If committers really don't want this code, we could always try
> fixing the code that the warning
> > > > is complaining about.
> > > >
> > > > -- Change 
> > > > ---
>
> > > > diff --git a/src/java.desktop/share/native/libjavajpeg/jchuff.c
> b/src/java.desktop/share/native/libjavajpeg/jchuff.c
> > > > --- a/src/java.desktop/share/native/libjavajpeg/jchuff.c
> > > > +++ b/src/java.desktop/share/native/libjavajpeg/jchuff.c
> > > > @@ -805,7 +805,7 @@
> > > >for (i = MAX_CLEN; i > 16; i--) {
> > > >  while (bits[i] > 0) {
> > > >j = i - 2;/* find length of new prefix to be
> used */
> > > > -  while (bits[j] == 0)
> > > > +  while ((bits[j] == 0) && (j > 0))
> > > >  j--;
> > > >
> > > >bits[i] -= 2; /* remove two symbols */
> > > > -- End of Change
> ---
> > > >
> > > > Again, it's a small, simple change that fixes a build break on two
> platforms.
> > > >
> > > > Either fix will solve this problem.
> > > >
> > > > Best Regards
> > > >
> > > > Adam Farley
> > > >
> > > > > Hi All,
> > > > >
> > > > > I ask for a committer to add one word to
> make/lib/Awt2dLibraries.gmk to solve a build break.
> > > > >
> > > > > We need to go to line 495 and add array-bounds into the list of
> disabled warnings.
> > > > >
> > > > > So this:
> > > > >
> > > > > DISABLED_WARNINGS_gcc := clobbered implicit-fallthrough
> shift-negative-value, \
> > > > >
> > > > > becomes this:
> > > > >
> > > > > DISABLED_WARNINGS_gcc := clobbered implicit-fallthrough
> shift-negative-value array-bounds, \
> > > > >
> > > > > This fixes a build-breaking problem which occurs if you don't
> disable
> > > > > errors-as-warnings on zLinux or Linux for ppcle.
> > > > >
> > > > > Best Regards
> > > > >
> > > > > Adam Farley
> > > > >
> > > > > P.S. For further background, see this:
> > > > > http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/2d-dev/2018-March/
> 008958.html
> > > >
> > > >
>
> 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
>

Re: [OpenJDK 2D-Dev] RFR: Bug Pending: Build fails to compile jchuff.c

[Adam Farley8]

cc'ing Tom directly in case this fell into a digest.

> I've reviewed it. The change looks good, it's a good programming 
practice while loop now :-)
> Cheers
> Andrew
> 
> Andrew Leonard
> Java Runtimes Development
> IBM Hursley
> IBM United Kingdom Ltd
> Phone internal: 245913, external: 01962 815913
> internet email: andrew_m_leon...@uk.ibm.com 
> 
> > Hi Tom,
> > 
> > Much obliged. :)
> > 
> > Any volunteers to be the 2nd reviewer?
> > 
> > Best Regards
> > 
> > Adam Farley
> > 
> > > Hi Adam,
> > > 
> > > this patch looks good. I can sponsor this for you if noone else 
steps up, but we need a second reviewer, preferably one from the 2d 
project.
> > > 
> > > Best Regards, Thomas
> > > 
> > > On Wed, Mar 21, 2018 at 12:41 PM, Adam Farley8 
 wrote:
> > > Hi All, 
> > > 
> > > If committers really don't want this code, we could always try 
fixing the code that the warning 
> > > is complaining about. 
> > > 
> > > -- Change 
--- 
> > > diff --git a/src/java.desktop/share/native/libjavajpeg/jchuff.c 
b/src/java.desktop/share/native/libjavajpeg/jchuff.c 
> > > --- a/src/java.desktop/share/native/libjavajpeg/jchuff.c 
> > > +++ b/src/java.desktop/share/native/libjavajpeg/jchuff.c 
> > > @@ -805,7 +805,7 @@ 
> > >for (i = MAX_CLEN; i > 16; i--) { 
> > >  while (bits[i] > 0) { 
> > >j = i - 2;/* find length of new prefix to be 
used */ 
> > > -  while (bits[j] == 0) 
> > > +  while ((bits[j] == 0) && (j > 0)) 
> > >  j--; 
> > > 
> > >bits[i] -= 2; /* remove two symbols */
> > > -- End of Change 
--- 
> > > 
> > > Again, it's a small, simple change that fixes a build break on two 
platforms. 
> > > 
> > > Either fix will solve this problem. 
> > > 
> > > Best Regards
> > > 
> > > Adam Farley 
> > > 
> > > > Hi All, 
> > > > 
> > > > I ask for a committer to add one word to 
make/lib/Awt2dLibraries.gmk to solve a build break. 
> > > > 
> > > > We need to go to line 495 and add array-bounds into the list of 
disabled warnings. 
> > > > 
> > > > So this: 
> > > > 
> > > > DISABLED_WARNINGS_gcc := clobbered implicit-fallthrough 
shift-negative-value, \ 
> > > > 
> > > > becomes this: 
> > > > 
> > > > DISABLED_WARNINGS_gcc := clobbered implicit-fallthrough 
shift-negative-value array-bounds, \ 
> > > > 
> > > > This fixes a build-breaking problem which occurs if you don't 
disable 
> > > > errors-as-warnings on zLinux or Linux for ppcle. 
> > > > 
> > > > Best Regards 
> > > > 
> > > > Adam Farley 
> > > > 
> > > > P.S. For further background, see this: 
> > > > 
http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/2d-dev/2018-March/008958.html 
> > > 
> > > 

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

Re: [OpenJDK 2D-Dev] RFR: Bug Pending: Build fails to compile jchuff.c

[Adam Farley8]

Hi Tom,

Much obliged. :)

Any volunteers to be the 2nd reviewer?

Best Regards

Adam Farley

> Hi Adam,
> 
> this patch looks good. I can sponsor this for you if noone else steps 
up, but we need a second reviewer, preferably one from the 2d project.
> 
> Best Regards, Thomas
> 
> On Wed, Mar 21, 2018 at 12:41 PM, Adam Farley8  
wrote:
> Hi All, 
> 
> If committers really don't want this code, we could always try fixing 
the code that the warning 
> is complaining about. 
> 
> -- Change 
--- 
> diff --git a/src/java.desktop/share/native/libjavajpeg/jchuff.c 
b/src/java.desktop/share/native/libjavajpeg/jchuff.c 
> --- a/src/java.desktop/share/native/libjavajpeg/jchuff.c 
> +++ b/src/java.desktop/share/native/libjavajpeg/jchuff.c 
> @@ -805,7 +805,7 @@ 
>for (i = MAX_CLEN; i > 16; i--) { 
>  while (bits[i] > 0) { 
>j = i - 2;/* find length of new prefix to be used 
*/ 
> -  while (bits[j] == 0) 
> +  while ((bits[j] == 0) && (j > 0)) 
>  j--; 
> 
>bits[i] -= 2; /* remove two symbols */
> -- End of Change 
--- 
> 
> Again, it's a small, simple change that fixes a build break on two 
platforms. 
> 
> Either fix will solve this problem. 
> 
> Best Regards
> 
> Adam Farley 
> 
> > Hi All, 
> > 
> > I ask for a committer to add one word to make/lib/Awt2dLibraries.gmk 
to solve a build break. 
> > 
> > We need to go to line 495 and add array-bounds into the list of 
disabled warnings. 
> > 
> > So this: 
> > 
> > DISABLED_WARNINGS_gcc := clobbered implicit-fallthrough 
shift-negative-value, \ 
> > 
> > becomes this: 
> > 
> > DISABLED_WARNINGS_gcc := clobbered implicit-fallthrough 
shift-negative-value array-bounds, \ 
> > 
> > This fixes a build-breaking problem which occurs if you don't disable 
> > errors-as-warnings on zLinux or Linux for ppcle. 
> > 
> > Best Regards 
> > 
> > Adam Farley 
> > 
> > P.S. For further background, see this: 
> > http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/2d-dev/2018-March/008958.html 
> 
> 

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

Re: [OpenJDK 2D-Dev] RFR: Bug Pending: Build fails to compile jchuff.c

[Thomas Stüfe]

Hi Adam,

this patch looks good. I can sponsor this for you if noone else steps up,
but we need a second reviewer, preferably one from the 2d project.

Best Regards, Thomas

On Wed, Mar 21, 2018 at 12:41 PM, Adam Farley8 
wrote:

> Hi All,
>
> If committers really don't want this code, we could always try fixing the
> code that the warning
> is complaining about.
>
> -- Change --
> -
> diff --git a/src/java.desktop/share/native/libjavajpeg/jchuff.c
> b/src/java.desktop/share/native/libjavajpeg/jchuff.c
> --- a/src/java.desktop/share/native/libjavajpeg/jchuff.c
> +++ b/src/java.desktop/share/native/libjavajpeg/jchuff.c
> @@ -805,7 +805,7 @@
>for (i = MAX_CLEN; i > 16; i--) {
>  while (bits[i] > 0) {
>j = i - 2;/* find length of new prefix to be used */
> -  while (bits[j] == 0)
> +  while ((bits[j] == 0) && (j > 0))
>  j--;
>
>bits[i] -= 2; /* remove two symbols */
> -- End of Change --
> -
>
> Again, it's a small, simple change that fixes a build break on two
> platforms.
>
> Either fix will solve this problem.
>
> Best Regards
>
> Adam Farley
>
> > Hi All,
> >
> > I ask for a committer to add one word to make/lib/Awt2dLibraries.gmk to
> solve a build break.
> >
> > We need to go to line 495 and add array-bounds into the list of disabled
> warnings.
> >
> > So this:
> >
> > DISABLED_WARNINGS_gcc := clobbered implicit-fallthrough
> shift-negative-value, \
> >
> > becomes this:
> >
> > DISABLED_WARNINGS_gcc := clobbered implicit-fallthrough
> shift-negative-value array-bounds, \
> >
> > This fixes a build-breaking problem which occurs if you don't disable
> > errors-as-warnings on zLinux or Linux for ppcle.
> >
> > Best Regards
> >
> > Adam Farley
> >
> > P.S. For further background, see this:
> > http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/2d-dev/2018-March/008958.html
>
> 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
>

Re: [OpenJDK 2D-Dev] RFR: Bug Pending: Build fails to compile jchuff.c

[Adam Farley8]

-- Summary --

I ask for a committer to go into jdk/jdk and add one word to 
make/lib/Awt2dLibraries.gmk

We need to go to line 495 and add array-bounds into the list of disabled 
warnings.

So this:

DISABLED_WARNINGS_gcc := clobbered implicit-fallthrough 
shift-negative-value, \ 

becomes this:

DISABLED_WARNINGS_gcc := clobbered implicit-fallthrough 
shift-negative-value array-bounds, \

This fixes a build-breaking problem which occurs if you don't disable
errors-as-warnings on zLinux or Linux for ppcle.

P.S. Backporting this to jdk8 would be awesome, but the priority is 
jdk/jdk.




-- Conversation --

> Am I understanding this correctly that it's really not tied to a gcc 
version
> but a cpu architecture, so it's only really affecting s390x? 

I'm saying it is tied to a combination of CPU architecture and gcc 
version.
Any combination of the affected gcc versions (4.8.5, 5.4.0) and affected
platforms (zLinux, ppcle Linux) see this error.

x86 Linux is not affected, not are gcc versions equal to (or, I assume, 
later 
than) 7.2.1.

> Are you also saying that gcc 7.2.1 is also affected but with a different 

> message? I'm fine with disabling this warning conditional on s390x, no 
need 
> for specific gcc versions.

I was unclear. 7.2.1 fails my unit test with a different warning, but a 
build 
I ran proves that this warning doesn't fail the build.

That being said, the addition of this option to a 7.2.1 test didn't seem 
to 
break anything, so we should be fine to just stick 
"DISABLED_WARNINGS_gcc := clobbered array-bounds" into Awt2dLibraries.gmk. 


> This discussion has already taken more time than it really warrants. :)

Agreed. :)

> Regarding warning chasing. I agree that we it's not feasible to chase 
down every 
> warning in every version of GCC, or any other toolchain, but I also 
think that 
> for platforms/configurations where people are actively developing 
changes for 
> OpenJDK, it makes sense to try to keep it clean. This helps prevent new 
code from 
> introducing warnings. For the configurations Oracle use, we keep a 
strict -Werror 
> policy because we want the code to be clean. I'm fine with other users 
trying to 
> keep the same standards on their configurations, but knowing that it 
will be their 
> responsibility to keep up to date. I also think we need to be reasonably 
fine grained 
> in when we disable warnings. Specifying every affected version of a 
toolchain is too 
> much, but if there are specific well defined limits to where the 
disabling relevant, 
> then I think we should use them, within reason. This also helps with 
keeping track 
> of why a particular warning is disabled in a future attempt to fix them.

I agree with all of this. Well put. :)

> On the other hand, if you are just building OpenJDK to produce binaries, 
without 
> producing and up streaming new code changes, there really isn't much 
need for 
> making the effort of trying to keep things clean, and trying to do so 
will likely 
> just end up being more work than it's worth.
> /Erik

I'm building OpenJDK to test fixes and new features, which I will 
eventually contribute
to OpenJDK. I consider this to be one of those fixes. One fix at a time. 
:)

Given all of this, I ask for a volunteer to raise a bug so we can 
integrate this change 
into JDK8 (as it's still very popular), and JDK. 

10 would be great too, though I understand it's locked against all but the 
worst bugs.
9 is optional, as it's soon to be replaced by 10.

Best Regards

Adam Farley


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

Re: [OpenJDK 2D-Dev] RFR: Bug Pending: Build fails to compile jchuff.c

[Adam Farley8]

 Re: [OpenJDK 2D-Dev] RFR: Bug Pending: Build fails to compile 
jchuff.cErik Joelsson to: Adam Farley8 01/02/2018 17:06
Cc: build-dev, David Holmes, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz, Magnus Ihse Bursie
From: Erik Joelsson 
To: Adam Farley8 
Cc: build-dev , David Holmes 
, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz 
, Magnus Ihse Bursie 

 

> Am I understanding this correctly that it's really not tied to a gcc 
version
> but a cpu architecture, so it's only really affecting s390x? 

I'm saying it is tied to a combination of CPU architecture and gcc 
version.
Any combination of the affected gcc versions (4.8.5, 5.4.0) and affected
platforms (zLinux, ppcle Linux) see this error.

x86 Linux is not affected, not are gcc versions equal to (or, I assume, 
later 
than) 7.2.1.

> Are you also saying that gcc 7.2.1 is also affected but with a different 

> message? I'm fine with disabling this warning conditional on s390x, no 
need 
> for specific gcc versions.

I was unclear. 7.2.1 fails my unit test with a different warning, but a 
build 
I ran proves that this warning doesn't fail the build.

That being said, the addition of this option to a 7.2.1 test didn't seem 
to 
break anything, so we should be fine to just stick 
"DISABLED_WARNINGS_gcc := clobbered array-bounds" into Awt2dLibraries.gmk. 


> This discussion has already taken more time than it really warrants. :)

Agreed. :)

> Regarding warning chasing. I agree that we it's not feasible to chase 
down every 
> warning in every version of GCC, or any other toolchain, but I also 
think that 
> for platforms/configurations where people are actively developing 
changes for 
> OpenJDK, it makes sense to try to keep it clean. This helps prevent new 
code from 
> introducing warnings. For the configurations Oracle use, we keep a 
strict -Werror 
> policy because we want the code to be clean. I'm fine with other users 
trying to 
> keep the same standards on their configurations, but knowing that it 
will be their 
> responsibility to keep up to date. I also think we need to be reasonably 
fine grained 
> in when we disable warnings. Specifying every affected version of a 
toolchain is too 
> much, but if there are specific well defined limits to where the 
disabling relevant, 
> then I think we should use them, within reason. This also helps with 
keeping track 
> of why a particular warning is disabled in a future attempt to fix them.

I agree with all of this. Well put. :)

> On the other hand, if you are just building OpenJDK to produce binaries, 
without 
> producing and up streaming new code changes, there really isn't much 
need for 
> making the effort of trying to keep things clean, and trying to do so 
will likely 
> just end up being more work than it's worth.
> /Erik

I'm building OpenJDK to test fixes and new features, which I will 
eventually contribute
to OpenJDK. I consider this to be one of those fixes. One fix at a time. 
:)

Given all of this, I ask for a volunteer to raise a bug so we can 
integrate this change 
into JDK8 (as it's still very popular), and JDK. 

10 would be great too, though I understand it's locked against all but the 
worst bugs.
9 is optional, as it's soon to be replaced by 10.

Best Regards

Adam Farley

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

Re: [OpenJDK 2D-Dev] RFR: Bug Pending: Build fails to compile jchuff.c

[David Holmes]

Hi Adam,

The wiki:

https://wiki.openjdk.java.net/display/Build/Supported+Build+Platforms

should have been updated for 10, and I expect it will be updated for 11 
as we are looking to update all of the "official" tool chains. Given the 
official gcc version for 9 was already 4.9.2 I don't think it necessary 
to support 4.8.5 in 10 or 11. Given the new update model it is unclear 
to me whether it makes sense to make this change in the 9u forest, but 
at most I think this should only be in 8u and 9u.


Thanks,
David

On 24/01/2018 3:18 AM, Adam Farley8 wrote:

On 01/23/2018  05:25 PM, Adam Farley8 wrote:

SLE-11:*   doesn't even have OpenJDK-8 and is also going to be out of support
next  year  anyway.


Does  this mean the gcc version will change? If you have hard information on
this,  I'd appreciate the URL.


I'm not sure  what you mean. SLE12-SP3 ships gcc-4.8.x while SLE-15 will
ship gcc-7,  see:

https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__build.opensuse.org_package_view-5Ffile_SUSE-3ASLE-2D15-3AGA_gcc_gcc.spec-3Fexpand-3D1=DwIC-g=jf_iaSHvJObTbx-siA1ZOg=P5m8KWUXJf-CeVJc0hDGD9AQ2LkcXDC0PMV9ntVw5Ho=dIGHRmVpTLUCdNXpk5OeZoRTr4KMZfiyFp7leAxQ1x4=kvSfKGn4zfKUDx14bZlDZsWrY3uorXE_6lBuTmOMchw= 




Is that what  you mean when you say the gcc version is changing?


Apologies, I was unclear. I was asking if the minimum gcc version on 
David's
website was likely to change when SLE11 went out of service. From what 
you're

telling me, the sles 11 bit on the site will likely be updated to sles 12,
and the gcc version won't change (as you're saying SLE12 ships with 4.8.x).




If the  minimum gcc version for 10 or 11 is above 4.8.5 across all platforms,
then  I agree, but I don't have that information, so I figured I'd ask to
cover  all of the JDK versions, to be safe.


I don't know  what the minimum version is at the moment, to be honest. I haven't
tried building  OpenJDK-10 or OpenJDK-11 on SLE-12:SP3 yet. I could do that
if that's  important.


Even  if the gcc version does change, adding 4.8.5-specific code shouldn't
break  anything.


It most likely  doesn't break anything. But it leaves workaround in the code
base which  we could potentially forget to clean out later when it is no
longer needed.


Agreed. I was hedging my bets on the gcc version not changing. Be good 
if we had

some reliable intel on the minimum gcc version that we could use to make a
decision.

 

What  do you think?


My opinion  is that the codebase for OpenJDK-11 should be kept clean because
we are working  on getting rid of unnecessary cruft. But this decision isn't
up to me,  of course. I'm just arguing that I consider the chances that someone
will try OpenJDK-11  on SLE-12:SP3 or even SLE-11:SP4 very low.

Adrian


A reasonable opinion. I may disagree with your conclusions, but you present
your arguments well.

Could others on this email chain act as tie breaker on the jdk10+11 
matter please?


Best Regards

Adam Farley

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

Re: [OpenJDK 2D-Dev] RFR: Bug Pending: Build fails to compile jchuff.c

[Philip Race]

The discussion about SLE seems to have taken over.
This was originally about zLinux.

If it actually makes sense for zLinux for JDK 11 then I have no 
objections to

the proposed toolchain specific patch ...

If it does not make sense for 11 then I think you should look only at 8u 
and prepare

a patch directly against that.

Its not "critical" for 10 which is in RDP2 already and 9 is going EOSL 
in less than 3 months  ...


-phil.

On 1/23/18, 9:18 AM, Adam Farley8 wrote:

>On 01/23/2018 05:25 PM, Adam Farley8 wrote:
>>> SLE-11:*  doesn't even have OpenJDK-8 and is also going to be out 
of support

>>> next year  anyway.
>>
>> Does this mean the gcc version will change? If you have hard 
information on

>> this, I'd appreciate the URL.
>
>I'm not sure what you mean. SLE12-SP3 ships gcc-4.8.x while SLE-15 will
>ship gcc-7, see:
>
>> 
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__build.opensuse.org_package_view-5Ffile_SUSE-3ASLE-2D15-3AGA_gcc_gcc.spec-3Fexpand-3D1=DwIC-g=jf_iaSHvJObTbx-siA1ZOg=P5m8KWUXJf-CeVJc0hDGD9AQ2LkcXDC0PMV9ntVw5Ho=dIGHRmVpTLUCdNXpk5OeZoRTr4KMZfiyFp7leAxQ1x4=kvSfKGn4zfKUDx14bZlDZsWrY3uorXE_6lBuTmOMchw= 
 


>
>Is that what you mean when you say the gcc version is changing?

Apologies, I was unclear. I was asking if the minimum gcc version on 
David's
website was likely to change when SLE11 went out of service. From what 
you're
telling me, the sles 11 bit on the site will likely be updated to sles 
12,
and the gcc version won't change (as you're saying SLE12 ships with 
4.8.x).


>
>> If the minimum gcc version for 10 or 11 is above 4.8.5 across all 
platforms,
>> then I agree, but I don't have that information, so I figured I'd 
ask to

>> cover all of the JDK versions, to be safe.
>
>I don't know what the minimum version is at the moment, to be honest. 
I haven't
>tried building OpenJDK-10 or OpenJDK-11 on SLE-12:SP3 yet. I could do 
that

>if that's important.
>
>> Even if the gcc version does change, adding 4.8.5-specific code 
shouldn't

>> break anything.
>
>It most likely doesn't break anything. But it leaves workaround in the 
code

>base which we could potentially forget to clean out later when it is no
>longer needed.

Agreed. I was hedging my bets on the gcc version not changing. Be good 
if we had
some reliable intel on the minimum gcc version that we could use to 
make a

decision.

>
>> What do you think?
>
>My opinion is that the codebase for OpenJDK-11 should be kept clean 
because
>we are working on getting rid of unnecessary cruft. But this decision 
isn't
>up to me, of course. I'm just arguing that I consider the chances that 
someone

>will try OpenJDK-11 on SLE-12:SP3 or even SLE-11:SP4 very low.
>
>Adrian

A reasonable opinion. I may disagree with your conclusions, but you 
present

your arguments well.

Could others on this email chain act as tie breaker on the jdk10+11 
matter please?


Best Regards

Adam Farley

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

Re: [OpenJDK 2D-Dev] RFR: Bug Pending: Build fails to compile jchuff.c

[Adam Farley8]

>On 01/23/2018 05:25 PM, Adam Farley8 wrote:
>>> SLE-11:*  doesn't even have OpenJDK-8 and is also going to be out of 
support
>>> next year  anyway.
>> 
>> Does this mean the gcc version will change? If you have hard 
information on
>> this, I'd appreciate the URL.
>
>I'm not sure what you mean. SLE12-SP3 ships gcc-4.8.x while SLE-15 will
>ship gcc-7, see:
>
>> 
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__build.opensuse.org_package_view-5Ffile_SUSE-3ASLE-2D15-3AGA_gcc_gcc.spec-3Fexpand-3D1=DwIC-g=jf_iaSHvJObTbx-siA1ZOg=P5m8KWUXJf-CeVJc0hDGD9AQ2LkcXDC0PMV9ntVw5Ho=dIGHRmVpTLUCdNXpk5OeZoRTr4KMZfiyFp7leAxQ1x4=kvSfKGn4zfKUDx14bZlDZsWrY3uorXE_6lBuTmOMchw=
>
>Is that what you mean when you say the gcc version is changing?

Apologies, I was unclear. I was asking if the minimum gcc version on 
David's 
website was likely to change when SLE11 went out of service. From what 
you're
telling me, the sles 11 bit on the site will likely be updated to sles 12,
and the gcc version won't change (as you're saying SLE12 ships with 
4.8.x).

>
>> If the minimum gcc version for 10 or 11 is above 4.8.5 across all 
platforms,
>> then I agree, but I don't have that information, so I figured I'd ask 
to
>> cover all of the JDK versions, to be safe.
>
>I don't know what the minimum version is at the moment, to be honest. I 
haven't
>tried building OpenJDK-10 or OpenJDK-11 on SLE-12:SP3 yet. I could do 
that
>if that's important.
>
>> Even if the gcc version does change, adding 4.8.5-specific code 
shouldn't
>> break anything.
>
>It most likely doesn't break anything. But it leaves workaround in the 
code
>base which we could potentially forget to clean out later when it is no
>longer needed.

Agreed. I was hedging my bets on the gcc version not changing. Be good if 
we had
some reliable intel on the minimum gcc version that we could use to make a
decision.

> 
>> What do you think?
>
>My opinion is that the codebase for OpenJDK-11 should be kept clean 
because
>we are working on getting rid of unnecessary cruft. But this decision 
isn't
>up to me, of course. I'm just arguing that I consider the chances that 
someone
>will try OpenJDK-11 on SLE-12:SP3 or even SLE-11:SP4 very low.
>
>Adrian

A reasonable opinion. I may disagree with your conclusions, but you 
present
your arguments well.

Could others on this email chain act as tie breaker on the jdk10+11 matter 
please?

Best Regards

Adam Farley

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

Re: [OpenJDK 2D-Dev] RFR: Bug Pending: Build fails to compile jchuff.c

[John Paul Adrian Glaubitz]

On 01/23/2018 03:13 PM, Adam Farley8 wrote:

The URL supplied by David (Holmes) lists 4.8.5 as the gcc version for
building JDK9 on SLES 11.3/12.1. Whether it's in a repository or not,
I read that as "this is the gcc version you should be building JDK9 on".

https://wiki.openjdk.java.net/display/Build/Supported+Build+Platforms

I asked for this change to be put in 10 and 11 because I don't know the
minimum/recommended gcc version for jdk10 and 11. I'm assuming it's
the same as 9 until told otherwise.


Building OpenJDK-10 or OpenJDK-11 requires OpenJDK-9, so you won't be able
to build them in a fresh SLE-12:SP3 installation anyway.

SLE-11:* doesn't even have OpenJDK-8 and is also going to be out of support
next year anyway.

I don't necessarily disagree bringing your changes into JDK-8 or JDK-9,
but I don't think they make sense to introduce them to JDK-10 and JDK-11.

Adrian

--
 .''`.  John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
: :' :  Debian Developer - glaub...@debian.org
`. `'   Freie Universitaet Berlin - glaub...@physik.fu-berlin.de
  `-GPG: 62FF 8A75 84E0 2956 9546  0006 7426 3B37 F5B5 F913

Re: [OpenJDK 2D-Dev] RFR: Bug Pending: Build fails to compile jchuff.c

[John Paul Adrian Glaubitz]

On 01/23/2018 02:44 PM, Adam Farley8 wrote:

John: I read your email, and I understand your position. I disagree with it,
but I understand it. 4.8.5 is an old version of gcc, but right now it is the
listed gcc version for SUSE sles on intel, ppc, ppcle, and zLinux. Even if
this is not the case for JDK 10 or 11, we should ensure this fix is fully
propagated to ensure consistent behaviour.

That is my position.

I happen to work at SUSE. And while you're right that SLE-12:GA is on gcc
4.8.x, SLE-12 doesn't have openjdk-9 or openjdk-10 or even -11 in its
update repositories (looking at the internal SUSE build system at the moment).

openjdk-9 is part of SLE-15:GA which itself ships gcc-7.

So, what exactly is the usecase for OpenJDK-9, 10 and 11?

Adrian

--
 .''`.  John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
: :' :  Debian Developer - glaub...@debian.org
`. `'   Freie Universitaet Berlin - glaub...@physik.fu-berlin.de
  `-GPG: 62FF 8A75 84E0 2956 9546  0006 7426 3B37 F5B5 F913

Re: [OpenJDK 2D-Dev] RFR: Bug Pending: Build fails to compile jchuff.c

[Adam Farley8]

> On 01/23/2018 03:13 PM, Adam Farley8 wrote:
>> The URL supplied by David (Holmes) lists 4.8.5 as the gcc version for
>> building JDK9 on SLES 11.3/12.1. Whether it's in a repository or not,
>> I read that as "this is the gcc version you should be building JDK9 
on".
>> 
>> 
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__wiki.openjdk.java.net_display_Build_Supported-2BBuild-2BPlatforms=DwIC-g=jf_iaSHvJObTbx-siA1ZOg=P5m8KWUXJf-CeVJc0hDGD9AQ2LkcXDC0PMV9ntVw5Ho=63AR5zmRQCx5v-MXloqnarJvGvjLXVVnJsui6XMOMoE=bDVDenH2BOpYeVaU504vQiL0lqdBlELIy_wWpX44Juw=
>> 
>> I asked for this change to be put in 10 and 11 because I don't know the
>> minimum/recommended gcc version for jdk10 and 11. I'm assuming it's
>> the same as 9 until told otherwise.
>
> Building OpenJDK-10 or OpenJDK-11 requires OpenJDK-9, so you won't be 
able
> to build them in a fresh SLE-12:SP3 installation anyway.

I'm working on the assumption that people will grab binaries from
AdoptOpenJDK.

>
> SLE-11:* doesn't even have OpenJDK-8 and is also going to be out of 
support
> next year anyway.

Does this mean the gcc version will change? If you have hard information 
on
this, I'd appreciate the URL.

>
> I don't necessarily disagree bringing your changes into JDK-8 or JDK-9,
> but I don't think they make sense to introduce them to JDK-10 and 
JDK-11.
>
> Adrian

If the minimum gcc version for 10 or 11 is above 4.8.5 across all 
platforms,
then I agree, but I don't have that information, so I figured I'd ask to 
cover all of the JDK versions, to be safe. 

Even if the gcc version does change, adding 4.8.5-specific code shouldn't 
break anything.

What do you think?

Best Regards

Adam Farley

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

Re: [OpenJDK 2D-Dev] RFR: Bug Pending: Build fails to compile jchuff.c

[Adam Farley8]

> On 01/23/2018 02:44 PM, Adam Farley8 wrote:
>> John: I read your email, and I understand your position. I disagree 
with it,
>> but I understand it. 4.8.5 is an old version of gcc, but right now it 
is the
>> listed gcc version for SUSE sles on intel, ppc, ppcle, and zLinux. Even 
if
>> this is not the case for JDK 10 or 11, we should ensure this fix is 
fully
>> propagated to ensure consistent behaviour.
>> 
>> That is my position.
> I happen to work at SUSE. And while you're right that SLE-12:GA is on 
gcc
> 4.8.x, SLE-12 doesn't have openjdk-9 or openjdk-10 or even -11 in its
> update repositories (looking at the internal SUSE build system at the 
moment).
>
> openjdk-9 is part of SLE-15:GA which itself ships gcc-7.
>
> So, what exactly is the usecase for OpenJDK-9, 10 and 11?
>
> Adrian

Hi Adrian,

The URL supplied by David (Holmes) lists 4.8.5 as the gcc version for
building JDK9 on SLES 11.3/12.1. Whether it's in a repository or not, 
I read that as "this is the gcc version you should be building JDK9 on".

https://wiki.openjdk.java.net/display/Build/Supported+Build+Platforms

I asked for this change to be put in 10 and 11 because I don't know the 
minimum/recommended gcc version for jdk10 and 11. I'm assuming it's 
the same as 9 until told otherwise.

Best Regards

Adam Farley

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