On Thu, 23 Jan 2025 05:37:29 GMT, Julian Waters 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
>> u
On Thu, 23 Jan 2025 05:37:29 GMT, Julian Waters 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
>> u
On Fri, 24 Jan 2025 20:36:20 GMT, Alexey Ivanov wrote:
>> I wonder if this falls into the category of "Can be used in a debugger" like
>> Alex mentioned above, if not I'll remove it
>
> I see no reason to keep it.
>
> If it's needed during debugging, there are many ways to find the handle.
>
>
On Fri, 24 Jan 2025 20:34:26 GMT, Alexey Ivanov wrote:
>> src/jdk.accessibility/windows/native/jabswitch/jabswitch.cpp line 364:
>>
>>> 362: }
>>> 363:
>>> 364: int regDeleteValue(HKEY hFamilyKey, LPCWSTR lpSubKey)
>>
>> There's one more memory leak:
>>
>> https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/blob/
On Fri, 24 Jan 2025 20:13:26 GMT, Alexey Ivanov wrote:
>> By the above statement are you referring to the lines 336 to 341? I'll admit
>> I'm a little lost for this one
>
> I'll submit a new bug to address this problem.
>
> It's not just a matter of an unused variables, it's the logic error: if
On Thu, 23 Jan 2025 05:49:47 GMT, Julian Waters wrote:
>> src/jdk.accessibility/windows/native/jaccesswalker/jaccesswalker.cpp line
>> 561:
>>
>>> 559: tvis.item = tvi;
>>> 560:
>>> 561: /* HTREEITEM treeNodeItem = */ TreeView_InsertItem(treeWnd,
>>> &tvis);
>>
>> Since it's
On Tue, 21 Jan 2025 13:42:05 GMT, Alexey Ivanov wrote:
>> Julian Waters has updated the pull request with a new target base due to a
>> merge or a rebase. The pull request now contains eight commits:
>>
>> - Merge branch 'openjdk:master' into accessibility
>> - Cast to void in AccessBridgeCal
On Thu, 23 Jan 2025 05:50:29 GMT, Julian Waters wrote:
>> src/jdk.accessibility/windows/native/jaccesswalker/jaccesswalker.cpp line
>> 261:
>>
>>> 259: GetClientRect(hWnd, &rcClient);
>>> 260: // hwndEdit =
>>> 261:CreateWindow("Edit",
>>
>> The edit control is
On Thu, 23 Jan 2025 05:46:29 GMT, Julian Waters wrote:
>> src/jdk.accessibility/windows/native/jabswitch/jabswitch.cpp line 334:
>>
>>> 332: TCHAR dataBuffer[DEFAULT_ALLOC];
>>> 333: TCHAR *data = dataBuffer;
>>> 334: // bool freeData = false;
>>
>> This should be set to `t
On Tue, 21 Jan 2025 14:33:57 GMT, Alexey Ivanov wrote:
>> Julian Waters has updated the pull request with a new target base due to a
>> merge or a rebase. The pull request now contains eight commits:
>>
>> - Merge branch 'openjdk:master' into accessibility
>> - Cast to void in AccessBridgeCal
On Tue, 21 Jan 2025 13:40:42 GMT, Alexey Ivanov wrote:
>> Julian Waters has updated the pull request with a new target base due to a
>> merge or a rebase. The pull request now contains eight commits:
>>
>> - Merge branch 'openjdk:master' into accessibility
>> - Cast to void in AccessBridgeCal
On Tue, 21 Jan 2025 21:18:27 GMT, Alexey Ivanov wrote:
>> Julian Waters has updated the pull request with a new target base due to a
>> merge or a rebase. The pull request now contains eight commits:
>>
>> - Merge branch 'openjdk:master' into accessibility
>> - Cast to void in AccessBridgeCal
On Tue, 21 Jan 2025 13:43:17 GMT, Alexey Ivanov wrote:
>> Will do, thanks
>
> I agree `retval` was probably used as a return value of the function; now
> there are explicit `return` statements.
I'll remove retval in a moment
-
PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/21
> 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 th
On Tue, 21 Jan 2025 00:34:39 GMT, Julian Waters wrote:
>> src/jdk.accessibility/windows/native/bridge/AccessBridgeCalls.c line 233:
>>
>>> 231: return TRUE;
>>> 232: }
>>> 233: ((void) error);
>>
>> Not sure why do we need it. I mean there is a value assignment befor
On Tue, 7 Jan 2025 09:56:11 GMT, Julian Waters 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
>> un
On Mon, 20 Jan 2025 23:35:33 GMT, Alexander Zuev wrote:
>> Julian Waters has updated the pull request with a new target base due to a
>> merge or a rebase. The pull request now contains eight commits:
>>
>> - Merge branch 'openjdk:master' into accessibility
>> - Cast to void in AccessBridgeCa
On Mon, 20 Jan 2025 23:35:23 GMT, Alexander Zuev wrote:
>> Julian Waters has updated the pull request with a new target base due to a
>> merge or a rebase. The pull request now contains eight commits:
>>
>> - Merge branch 'openjdk:master' into accessibility
>> - Cast to void in AccessBridgeCa
On Mon, 20 Jan 2025 23:18:41 GMT, Alexander Zuev wrote:
>> Julian Waters has updated the pull request with a new target base due to a
>> merge or a rebase. The pull request now contains eight commits:
>>
>> - Merge branch 'openjdk:master' into accessibility
>> - Cast to void in AccessBridgeCa
On Tue, 7 Jan 2025 09:56:11 GMT, Julian Waters 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
>> un
On Tue, 7 Jan 2025 09:56:11 GMT, Julian Waters 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
>> un
On Tue, 7 Jan 2025 09:56:11 GMT, Julian Waters 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
>> un
On Tue, 7 Jan 2025 09:56:11 GMT, Julian Waters 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
>> un
On Tue, 7 Jan 2025 09:56:11 GMT, Julian Waters 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
>> un
On Tue, 19 Nov 2024 17:58:59 GMT, Phil Race wrote:
>> Julian Waters has updated the pull request with a new target base due to a
>> merge or a rebase. The incremental webrev excludes the unrelated changes
>> brought in by the merge/rebase. The pull request contains three additional
>> commits
> 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 th
> 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 th
On Tue, 19 Nov 2024 17:58:59 GMT, Phil Race wrote:
>> Julian Waters has updated the pull request with a new target base due to a
>> merge or a rebase. The incremental webrev excludes the unrelated changes
>> brought in by the merge/rebase. The pull request contains three additional
>> commits
On Wed, 20 Nov 2024 05:41:58 GMT, Julian Waters 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
>> u
On Wed, 20 Nov 2024 05:41:58 GMT, Julian Waters 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
>> u
On Sun, 27 Oct 2024 06:24:49 GMT, Julian Waters 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
>> u
> 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 th
On Tue, 19 Nov 2024 17:58:59 GMT, Phil Race wrote:
> There's not much I like about this PR. I think it would be better to withdraw
> it and submit a bug against A11Y for people to look at what should really be
> done about these cases. Which could include "do nothing".
Thanks for taking a look
On Sun, 27 Oct 2024 06:24:49 GMT, Julian Waters 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
>> u
On Sun, 27 Oct 2024 06:24:49 GMT, Julian Waters 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
>> u
On Sun, 27 Oct 2024 06:24:49 GMT, Julian Waters 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
>> u
On Sun, 27 Oct 2024 06:24:49 GMT, Julian Waters 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
>> u
On Sun, 27 Oct 2024 06:24:49 GMT, Julian Waters 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
>> u
> 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 th
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 a
40 matches
Mail list logo
