RFR: JDK-8001931 The new build system whitespace cleanup

[Magnus Ihse Bursie]

I found a couple of more places with the same issue, all in the jdk 
repository.

New webrev for jdk: 
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~ihse/JDK-8001931-build-infra-whitespace-cleanup/jdk/webrev.02

Webrev showing diff between this and previous webrev: 
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~ihse/JDK-8001931-build-infra-whitespace-cleanup/jdk/webrev.diff-01-02

/Magnus

On 2013-10-08 13:55, Magnus Ihse Bursie wrote:
> Resending, since it seems to have disappeared on the way. Sorry if it 
> reaches you twice.
>
> On 2013-10-08 11:53, Volker Simonis wrote:
>> I've just started looking into this, but if I understand point 5:
>>
>> 5) Non-shell commands in a recipe (e.g. comments and make directives 
>> like ifdef) must not start with tab, but should instead be indented 
>> to the same level as the surrounding shell commands using spaces 
>> (with tabs interpreted as 8 spaces wide).
>>
>> correctly, the changes to jdk/makefiles/BuildJdk.gmk for example 
>> should be:
>>
>>  gensrc-only:
>>          +$(MAKE) -f GenerateJavaSources.gmk
>> -#        Ok, now gensrc is fully populated.
>> +        # Ok, now gensrc is fully populated.
>>
>> (i.e. comments should be indented to the same level as the 
>> surrounding commands) instead of:
>
> Yep, you are absolutely correct. We have missed that one.
>
> Actually, the we didn't realize from the start that it was possible to 
> get the same visual indentation level for comments in recipes by using 
> leading spaces instead of tabs, so in our original form our guidelines 
> stated that comments in recipes should be like the one you found in 
> BuildJdk.gmk -- that is, the # at the first column, and the rest of 
> the comment indented "inside" the comment to the same level. But that 
> is of course not as good, and was something we only thought was 
> necessary due to makefile syntax.
>
> There might be more places were we have used the "old" rule for 
> comments in recipes. I'll do a search in the code base and see if 
> there are any more.
>
> Thank you for pointing this out!
>
> /Magnus
>