RFR: [OpenJDK 2D-Dev] JDK-8215296 do not disable c99 on Solaris

[David Holmes]

On 18/12/2018 6:56 pm, Baesken, Matthias wrote:
> Thanks David,  can I add you as a reviewer ?

Yes.

> Unfortunately  the  jdk/jdk  Solaris sparc  results   are  currently  so broken    (with or without the change)  that it is hard to tell  what difference it really makes ...

This is a build flag change that relates to the source language used and 
the build is fine so I don't see there are any issues. My own tests had 
no new issues in our tiers 1 - 3.

Cheers,
David

> Best regards, Matthias
> 
> 
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: David Holmes <david.holmes at oracle.com>
>> Sent: Dienstag, 18. Dezember 2018 09:45
>> To: Baesken, Matthias <matthias.baesken at sap.com>; 2d-
>> dev at openjdk.java.net; erik.joelsson at oracle.com; 'build-
>> dev at openjdk.java.net' <build-dev at openjdk.java.net>; awt-
>> dev at openjdk.java.net; 'magnus.ihse.bursie at oracle.com'
>> <magnus.ihse.bursie at oracle.com>
>> Subject: Re: RFR: [OpenJDK 2D-Dev] JDK-8215296 do not disable c99 on
>> Solaris
>>
>> On 18/12/2018 6:02 pm, Baesken, Matthias wrote:
>>> Hi David, thanks for  the update on your internal builds . Same is true for
>> our internal builds .
>>>
>>> Regarding C99  with -Xa set :
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> It's not at all clear to me that C99-isms will be allowed if -Xa is set.
>>>>>
>>>
>>> The C99 features I tested are allowed when -Xa is set  (tested with SS12
>> update 4) -
>>
>> Thanks for the info. Seems okay for now then.
>>
>> David
>>
>>>       -Xa  is  set, without  other compile flags  :
>>>
>>> bash-4.1$ /compiler/SS12u4-Oct2017/SUNWspro/bin/cc bool.c -Xa -o bool
>>> bash-4.1$ ./bool
>>> b is true.
>>> a: 1
>>>
>>>      -Xa is set  together with  the old flag forbidding C99 , this leads to a lot of
>> compile errors :
>>>
>>> bash-4.1$ /compiler/SS12u4-Oct2017/SUNWspro/bin/cc bool.c -
>> xc99=%none  -Xa -o bool
>>> "bool.c", line 5: undefined symbol: bool
>>> "bool.c", line 5: syntax error before or at: b
>>> "bool.c", line 6: undefined symbol: b
>>> "bool.c", line 9: syntax error before or at: /
>>> "bool.c", line 12: undefined symbol: a
>>> cc: acomp failed for bool.c
>>>
>>> The  example program  contains  bool , C++-style comments  and
>> declaration of  a   after the if-statement.
>>>
>>> bash-4.1$ more bool.c
>>> #include <stdio.h>
>>> #include <stdbool.h>
>>>
>>> int main() {
>>>     bool b = true;
>>>     if (b) {
>>>       printf("b is true.\n");
>>>     }
>>>     // C++ style comments
>>>     // decl.
>>>     int a = 1;
>>>     printf("a: %d \n", a);
>>>
>>>     return 0;
>>> }
>>>
>>>
>>> Best regards, Matthias
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: David Holmes <david.holmes at oracle.com>
>>>> Sent: Dienstag, 18. Dezember 2018 01:24
>>>> To: Baesken, Matthias <matthias.baesken at sap.com>; 2d-
>>>> dev at openjdk.java.net; erik.joelsson at oracle.com; 'build-
>>>> dev at openjdk.java.net' <build-dev at openjdk.java.net>; awt-
>>>> dev at openjdk.java.net; 'magnus.ihse.bursie at oracle.com'
>>>> <magnus.ihse.bursie at oracle.com>
>>>> Subject: Re: RFR: [OpenJDK 2D-Dev] JDK-8215296 do not disable c99 on
>>>> Solaris
>>>>
>>>> Our internal builds pass okay.
>>>>
>>>> David
>>>>
>>>> On 18/12/2018 8:02 am, David Holmes wrote:
>>>>> Hi Matthias,
>>>>>
>>>>> On 17/12/2018 11:12 pm, Baesken, Matthias wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hello,  please review
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~mbaesken/webrevs/8215296.0/
>>>>>>
>>>>>> in my change just -xc99=%none  is removed, so we do not forbid c99
>>>>>> coding.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The -Xa compile flag is kept,  no special additional settings are
>>>>>> needed to compile png/awt .
>>>>>
>>>>> It's not at all clear to me that C99-isms will be allowed if -Xa is set.
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't think jdk-submit tests Solaris. I'm putting this through our
>>>>> internal builds.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>> David
>>>>>
>>>