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
16 matches
Mail list logo
