[OpenJDK 2D-Dev] RFR(xxxs): 8200052: libjavajpeg: Fix compile warning in jchuff.c

Thu May 17 00:20:16 UTC 2018

Hi,

OK .. if you can convince upstream this is worth doing, then we can 
accept it
as we would not regress when updating. As I noted previously :
http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/2d-dev/2018-March/009086.html
this is still an issue in the currently being developed 9c train.

-phil.

On 5/14/18, 3:06 AM, Adam Farley8 wrote:
> Hi Phil,
>
> Would an acceptable compromise be to deliver the source code change
> and send the code to the upstream community, allowing them to include
> the fix if/when they are able?
>
> I believe Magnus was advocating this idea as well. See below.
>
> Best Regards
>
> Adam Farley
>
> > Same here. I would like to have this fix in, but do not want to go
> > over Phils head.
> >
> > I think Phil was the main objector, maybe he could reconsider?`
> >
> > Thanks, Thomas
> >
> > On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 10:39 AM, Magnus Ihse Bursie
> > <magnus.ihse.bursie at oracle.com> wrote:
> > > I don't object, but it's not build code so I don't have the final say.
> > >
> > > /Magnus
> > >
> > >
> > > On 2018-04-25 17:43, Adam Farley8 wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi All,
> > >
> > > Does anyone have an objection to pushing this tiny change in?
> > >
> > > It doesn't break anything, it fixes a build break on two supported
> > > platforms, and it seems
> > > like we never refresh the code from upstream.
> > >
> > > - Adam
> > >
> > >> I also advocate the source code fix, as Make isn't meant to use 
> the sort
> > >> of logic required
> > >> to properly analyse the toolchain version string.
> > >>
> > >> e.g. An "eq" match on 4.8.5 doesn't protect the user who is using 
> 4.8.6,
> > >> and Make doesn't
> > >> seem to do substring stuff unless you mess around with shells.
> > >>
> > >> Plus, as people have said, it's better to solve problem x (or work 
> around
> > >> a specific
> > >> instance of x) than to ignore the exception, even if the ignoring 
> code is
> > >> toolchain-
> > >> specific.
> > >>
> > >> - Adam Farley
> > >>
> > >> > On 2018-03-27 18:44, Phil Race wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> >> As I said I prefer the make file change, since this is a change 
> to an
> > >> >> upstream library.
> > >> >
> > >> > Newtons fourth law: For every reviewer, there's an equal and 
> opposite
> > >> > reviewer. :)
> > >> >
> > >> > Here I am, advocating a source code fix. As Thomas says, the 
> compiler
> > >> > complaint seems reasonable, and disabling it might cause us to 
> miss other
> > >> > future errors.
> > >> >
> > >> > Why can't we push the source code fix, and also submit it upstream?
> > >> >
> > >> > /Magnus
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> > I've looked at jpeg-9c and it still looks identical to what we 
> have in
> > >> > 6b, so this code
> > >> > seems to have stood the test of time. I'm also unclear why the 
> compiler
> > >> > would
> > >> > complain about that and not the one a few lines later
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >  819   while (bits[i] == 0)          /* find largest codelength 
> still in
> > >> > use */
> > >> >  820     i--;
> > >> >
> > >> > A push to jchuff.c will get blown away if/when we upgrade.
> > >> > A tool-chain specific fix in the makefile with an appropriate 
> comment is
> > >> > more targeted.
> > >>
> > >> Phil,
> > >>
> > >> Returning to this.
> > >>
> > >> While I understand your reluctance to patch upstream code, let me 
> point
> > >> out that we have not updated libjpeg a single time since the JDK 
> was open
> > >> sourced. We're using 6b from 27-Mar-1998. I had a look at the 
> Wikipedia page
> > >> on libjpeg, and this is the latest "uncontroversial" version of 
> the source.
> > >> Versions 7 and up have proprietary extensions, which in turn has 
> resulted in
> > >> multiple forks of libjpeg. As it stands, it seems unlikely that we 
> will ever
> > >> replace libjpeg 6b with a simple upgrade from upstream.
> > >>
> > >> I therefore maintain my position that a source code fix would be 
> the best
> > >> way forward here.
> > >>
> > >> /Magnus
> > >>
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> > -phil.
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> > On 03/27/2018 05:44 AM, Thomas Stüfe wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> > Hi all,
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> > just a friendly reminder. I would like to push this tiny fix 
> because
> > >> > tripping over this on our linux s390x builds is annoying (yes, 
> we can
> > >> > maintain patch queues, but this is a constant error source).
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> > I will wait for 24 more hours until a reaction. If no serious 
> objections
> > >> > are forcoming, I want to push it (tier1 tests ran thru, and me 
> and Christoph
> > >> > langer are both Reviewers).
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> > Thanks! Thomas
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> > On Wed, Mar 21, 2018 at 6:20 PM, Thomas Stüfe 
> <thomas.stuefe at gmail.com>
> > >> > wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> > Hi all,
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> > may I please have another review for this really trivial change. It
> > >> > fixes a gcc warning on s390 and ppc. Also, it is probably a good 
> idea to fix
> > >> > this.
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> > bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8200052
> > >> > webrev:
> > >> > 
> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~stuefe/webrevs/8200052-fix-warning-in-jchuff.c/webrev.00/webrev/ 
> <http://cr.openjdk.java.net/%7Estuefe/webrevs/8200052-fix-warning-in-jchuff.c/webrev.00/webrev/> 
>
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> > This was contributed by Adam Farley at IBM.
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> > I already reviewed this. I also test-built on zlinux and it works.
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> > Thanks, Thomas
> > >> >
> > >>
> > >> Unless stated otherwise above:
> > >> IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with 
> number
> > >> 741598.
> > >> Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire 
> PO6 3AU
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> > > Unless stated otherwise above:
> > > IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with 
> number
> > > 741598.
> > > Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire 
> PO6 3AU
> > >
> > >
>
> Unless stated otherwise above:
> IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with 
> number 741598.
> Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6 3AU