On Thu, 12 Dec 2024 05:39:04 GMT, Julian Waters <jwat...@openjdk.org> wrote:
>> You need to split this up into multiple parts. One part is about removing >> dead code. Do not comment it out, just remove it. Open a new JBS issue on >> client-libs for removal of dead code. This should be trivial to get pushed. >> >> Then, you have some other changes. Looks like you moved something from a >> header file to a cpp file. Make that a separate PR, also on client-libs. >> >> Then you are making some annotation stuff. I have not seen these before. Are >> they established? This might need some more discussion to get a consensus on >> how to proceed with. >> >> And finally you are bumping the C++ language level. You have already opened >> a separate JBS issue for that, and we've said that we do that when we do >> that. So just drop that part. > > The dead code removal may not be correct, same goes for the rest of the > changes. Most, if not all of them (Especially the C++17 change) are pure > placeholders to simply draw attention to the problem sites. I think all of > them need discussion on how to proceed with (Same with the corresponding > jdk.accessibility changes), not just the annotations. Speaking of which, the > annotations are C++ attributes, introduced in C++11, and are (fortunately) > Standard and not compiler extensions. Splitting this up to even smaller > changes may or may not inconvenience the few reviewers that AWT and A11Y has, > which is what I'm worried about The code has likely been dead for years. If no-one has reported any bugs about this, it is likely correct that it is unused. If you think that is a bug, do some git archaeology to determine when it became dead, or locate what pathway you think it should be used it, and try to provoke an error. I still think publishing a simple PR which just removes dead code is the best way for you to proceed here. Such a PR should be trivial to review. ------------- PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/21655#discussion_r1881717235
