RFR: 8346059: [ASAN] awt_LoadLibrary.c reported compile warning ignoring return value of function by clang17

[Magnus Ihse Bursie]

On Fri, 13 Dec 2024 08:04:50 GMT, Magnus Ihse Bursie <ihse at openjdk.org> wrote:

>> Should I combine 3 similar issues([JDK-8346104](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8346104)/[JDK-8346103](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8346103)/[JDK-8346059](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8346059)) to 1 issue
>
>> `perror` will print the given message accrording the previous `errno` info to stderr, so this change will not change the original behaviour.
> 
> What do you mean? The original behavior would not write anything to stderr under any circumstance.
> 
> Now since the file name comes from a loaded library, I can't possibly imagine anything (short of a provoked situation where someone deliberatly removes the library after starting the JVM or something like that) that would cause realpath to fail. So this is basically just about keeping the compiler quiet.
> 
> Had we *really* expected that this could happen, this would not have been an accepted solution. Then you'd had to raise an exception, perhaps, and see if/how the operation could be retried, what consequences a failure would have, etc.
> 
> But as I said, in this particular instance, it might be okay.

> Should I combine 3 similar issues([JDK-8346104](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8346104)/[JDK-8346103](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8346103)/[JDK-8346059](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8346059)) to 1 issue

I personally would probably have started out by making a single issue for these, since they all try to address the same new warning in clang, and are all in client code, and only split it up later if reviewers had requested it. But since you have created separate issues, I suggest you do not change things now. Also, the other two I believe need a more serious response; a write to a pipe has a somewhat more realistic chance at failure than this filename lookup.

-------------

PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/22701#discussion_r1883525731