Related, I've also filed: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8211071
and waiting for review here: http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/core-libs-dev/2018-September/055666.html Thanks, Roman > Hello, one additonal info , my colleague looking into the compile issues > after 8211029 found this error , > when compiling on linuxx86_64 : > > === Output from failing command(s) repeated here === > * For target support_native_java.base_libnet_DatagramPacket.o: > In file included from > /OpenJDK/8210319/jdk/src/java.base/share/native/libnet/net_util.h:31:0, > from > /OpenJDK/8210319/jdk/src/java.base/share/native/libnet/DatagramPacket.c:27: > /OpenJDK/8210319/jdk/src/java.base/unix/native/libnet/net_util_md.h:50:7: > error: "__solaris__" is not defined [-Werror=undef] > #elif __solaris__ > ^ > cc1: all warnings being treated as errors > * For target support_native_java.base_libnet_Inet4Address.o: > In file included from > /OpenJDK/8210319/jdk/src/java.base/share/native/libnet/net_util.h:31:0, > from > /OpenJDK/8210319/jdk/src/java.base/share/native/libnet/Inet4Address.c:29: > /OpenJDK/8210319/jdk/src/java.base/unix/native/libnet/net_util_md.h:50:7: > error: "__solaris__" is not defined [-Werror=undef] > #elif __solaris__ > > Obviously "__solaris__" is not defined on Linux so I wonder how you > could compile this ? > ( the coding might need improvement however the test should be like > #elif defined(__solaris__) ) > > > Best regards, Matthias > > > From: Baesken, Matthias > Sent: Dienstag, 25. September 2018 16:34 > To: 'build-...@openjdk.java.net' <build-...@openjdk.java.net> > Cc: Schmidt, Lutz <lutz.schm...@sap.com>; Doerr, Martin <martin.do...@sap.com> > Subject: build issues after 8211029 on gcc4.8 and our porting Linux platforms > (ppc64(le)/ s390x) > > > Hello, it looks like > > 8211029: Have a common set of enabled warnings for all native libraries > > breaks a lot of our Linux based builds. > Our gcc 4.8 misses some of the introduced command line options : > > cc1plus: error: unrecognized command line option > "-Wno-misleading-indentation" [-Werror] > cc1plus: error: unrecognized command line option "-Wno-implicit-fallthrough" > [-Werror] > cc1plus: error: unrecognized command line option "-Wno-int-in-bool-context" > [-Werror] > > Additionally , the added -Werror=switch triggers a LOT of errors on our > porting platforms, e.g. linux ppc64 le : > > /build_ci_jdk_jdk_linuxppc64le/src/hotspot/cpu/ppc/c1_LIRGenerator_ppc.cpp:719:10: > error: enumeration value '_Double_valueOf' not handled in switch > [-Werror=switch] > /build_ci_jdk_jdk_linuxppc64le/src/hotspot/cpu/ppc/c1_LIRGenerator_ppc.cpp:719:10: > error: enumeration value '_forEachRemaining' not handled in switch > [-Werror=switch] > /build_ci_jdk_jdk_linuxppc64le/src/hotspot/cpu/ppc/c1_LIRGenerator_ppc.cpp:719:10: > error: enumeration value 'ID_LIMIT' not handled in switch [-Werror=switch] > /build_ci_jdk_jdk_linuxppc64le/src/hotspot/cpu/ppc/c1_LIRGenerator_ppc.cpp:719:10: > error: enumeration value 'LAST_COMPILER_INLINE' not handled in switch > [-Werror=switch] > /build_ci_jdk_jdk_linuxppc64le/src/hotspot/cpu/ppc/c1_LIRGenerator_ppc.cpp:719:10: > error: enumeration value 'FIRST_MH_SIG_POLY' not handled in switch > [-Werror=switch] > /build_ci_jdk_jdk_linuxppc64le/src/hotspot/cpu/ppc/c1_LIRGenerator_ppc.cpp:719:10: > error: enumeration value 'FIRST_MH_STATIC' not handled in switch > [-Werror=switch] > /build_ci_jdk_jdk_linuxppc64le/src/hotspot/cpu/ppc/c1_LIRGenerator_ppc.cpp:719:10: > error: enumeration value 'LAST_MH_SIG_POLY' not handled in switch > [-Werror=switch] > /build_ci_jdk_jdk_linuxppc64le/src/hotspot/cpu/ppc/c1_LIRGenerator_ppc.cpp:719:10: > error: enumeration value 'FIRST_ID' not handled in switch [-Werror=switch] > > Could we get rid of the -Werror=switch at least for now ? > Maybe it should be disabled for ppc64 / ppc64le / s390x like it has been > done for zero ? > > 4.13+ > 4.14 ifeq ($(call check-jvm-feature, zero), true) > 4.15- DISABLED_WARNINGS_gcc += return-type > 4.16+ DISABLED_WARNINGS_gcc += return-type switch > 4.17 endif > > > Regarding the unrecognized command line options , I suggest to still support > older gcc versions; > what would be the minimal gcc version that supports 8211029 ? > > Best regards, Matthias >
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
