On Wed, 23 Oct 2024 05:07:37 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
> unuse
On Wed, 23 Oct 2024 05:07:37 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
> unuse
On Wed, 23 Oct 2024 05:07:37 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
> unuse
On Mon, 23 Dec 2024 08:18:40 GMT, Thomas Stuefe wrote:
>> src/java.desktop/share/native/common/awt/debug/debug_trace.h line 66:
>>
>>> 64: /* each file includes this flag indicating module trace status */
>>> 65: #ifdef __cplusplus
>>> 66: [[maybe_unused]]
>>
>> I don't really know what to do a
On Wed, 23 Oct 2024 05:08:47 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, 23 Oct 2024 05:07:37 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
> unuse
On Thu, 12 Dec 2024 05:39:04 GMT, Julian Waters 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.
>>
>>
On Wed, 11 Dec 2024 20:55:41 GMT, Magnus Ihse Bursie wrote:
>> @magicus Sorry for the ping, but I'm a bit confused. Do you know what bug
>> report site Phil is referring to when he says to submit a bug to AWT
>> instead? Is it just the JBS? (There's a little bit of a problem if it is, it
>> is
On Wed, 11 Dec 2024 06:20:07 GMT, Julian Waters wrote:
>> Then you'll have to create a macro for disabling the unused warnings
>> (however, I'm not sure how well that would be received). Or fix the bug if
>> it is actually unused. Or wait until we go to 17.
>
> @magicus Sorry for the ping, but
On Fri, 25 Oct 2024 10:11:57 GMT, Magnus Ihse Bursie wrote:
>> It's a checkout error from the original gigantic Pull Request, sorry. I
>> don't plan to raise the JDK to C++17 in this one. But I'm not sure what to
>> do with this now, since maybe_unused is C++17. I don't think anyone is going
>
On Wed, 23 Oct 2024 05:07:37 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
> unuse
On Fri, 25 Oct 2024 10:11:57 GMT, Magnus Ihse Bursie wrote:
>> It's a checkout error from the original gigantic Pull Request, sorry. I
>> don't plan to raise the JDK to C++17 in this one. But I'm not sure what to
>> do with this now, since maybe_unused is C++17. I don't think anyone is going
>
On Fri, 25 Oct 2024 04:47:19 GMT, Julian Waters wrote:
>> make/autoconf/flags-cflags.m4 line 589:
>>
>>> 587: # CXXFLAGS C++ language level for all of JDK, including Hotspot.
>>> 588: if test "x$TOOLCHAIN_TYPE" = xgcc || test "x$TOOLCHAIN_TYPE" =
>>> xclang; then
>>> 589: LANGSTD_CXXFLA
On Thu, 24 Oct 2024 22:07:52 GMT, Magnus Ihse Bursie 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
On Wed, 23 Oct 2024 05:07:37 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
> unuse
On Wed, 23 Oct 2024 05:07:37 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
> unuse
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
17 matches
Mail list logo
