8202794: Native Unix code should use readdir rather than readdir_r

[ted at tedneward.com]

And forgot to lead with: Thanks, Pengfei! That helps a great deal.

Ted Neward
Technologist and Leader
T: @tedneward | M: (425) 647-4526
http://www.newardassociates.com

-----Original Message-----
From: Pengfei Li <Pengfei.Li at arm.com> 
Sent: Sunday, August 5, 2018 11:26 PM
To: ted at tedneward.com; 'Alan Bateman' <Alan.Bateman at oracle.com>; kim.barrett at oracle.com; bsrbnd at gmail.com
Cc: build-dev at openjdk.java.net; nd <nd at arm.com>; core-libs-dev at openjdk.java.net
Subject: RE: 8202794: Native Unix code should use readdir rather than readdir_r

Ted,

I just use --disable-warnings-as-errors in bash configure command to build jdk 10/11 on Ubuntu 18.

--
Thanks,
Pengfei

> 
> Assuming I want to build JDK 8/9/10/11 (for research and spelunking 
> purposes), what's the best way to do that if the changes aren't going 
> to be backported? Turn off the warnings-as-errors (and what's the best 
> way to do that), or somehow downgrade glibc (on my Ubuntu 18 image)? I 
> could use advice/assistance on either approach.
> 
> Ted Neward
> Technologist and Leader
> T: @tedneward | M: (425) 647-4526
> http://www.newardassociates.com
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Alan Bateman <Alan.Bateman at oracle.com>
> Sent: Sunday, August 5, 2018 11:08 AM
> To: ted at tedneward.com; 'Pengfei Li' <Pengfei.Li at arm.com>; 
> kim.barrett at oracle.com; bsrbnd at gmail.com
> Cc: build-dev at openjdk.java.net; 'nd' <nd at arm.com>; core-libs- 
> dev at openjdk.java.net
> Subject: Re: 8202794: Native Unix code should use readdir rather than 
> readdir_r
> 
> On 03/08/2018 20:26, ted at tedneward.com wrote:
> > Hey, all; did this get resolved? I'm still getting this error in 
> > pulled-yesterday clones of jdk8u and jdk9 and jdk10. I would prefer 
> > not to make local changes (mostly I want to build debug builds so I 
> > can spelunk the JVM bits), but if this isn't going to roll out 
> > fairly shortly I'll disable warnings-as-errors and carry on.
> >
> The changes for JDK-8202353, JDK-8202794, and JDK-8207340 are in 
> jdk/jdk for JDK 12. There are few residual issues/inconsistencies that 
> came up and are still under discussion on the mailing lists. I don't 
> think there has been any discussion yet about back porting.
> 
> -Alan