On Thu, Oct 7, 2021 at 12:15 AM Joe Darcy wrote:
> Curious. The JDK build is done with javac -Xlint:cast warning enabled
> (JDK-8032734) which is intended to catch issues like this. Perhaps IntelliJ
> is using a different (or sharper) analysis.
Yes, our analysis is written independently of Jav
On Thu, 9 Sep 2021 20:12:47 GMT, Andrey Turbanov
wrote:
> Redundant castings make code harder to read.
> Found them by IntelliJ IDEA.
> I tried to select only casts which are definitely safe to remove. Also didn't
> touch primitive types casts.
`java.io` change looks all right.
-
On Thu, 9 Sep 2021 20:12:47 GMT, Andrey Turbanov
wrote:
> Redundant castings make code harder to read.
> Found them by IntelliJ IDEA.
> I tried to select only casts which are definitely safe to remove. Also didn't
> touch primitive types casts.
Curious. The JDK build is done with javac -Xlint:
On Thu, 9 Sep 2021 20:12:47 GMT, Andrey Turbanov
wrote:
> Redundant castings make code harder to read.
> Found them by IntelliJ IDEA.
> I tried to select only casts which are definitely safe to remove. Also didn't
> touch primitive types casts.
Marked as reviewed by lancea (Reviewer).
---
On Thu, 9 Sep 2021 20:12:47 GMT, Andrey Turbanov
wrote:
> Redundant castings make code harder to read.
> Found them by IntelliJ IDEA.
> I tried to select only casts which are definitely safe to remove. Also didn't
> touch primitive types casts.
Calendar-related changes look good to me.
--
On Thu, 9 Sep 2021 20:12:47 GMT, Andrey Turbanov
wrote:
> Redundant castings make code harder to read.
> Found them by IntelliJ IDEA.
> I tried to select only casts which are definitely safe to remove. Also didn't
> touch primitive types casts.
The security related files look fine.
--
