Security fixes are back; other fixes can go in. Time for build 18?

[Joseph D. Darcy]

Andrew John Hughes wrote:
> 2009/12/8 Joseph D. Darcy <Joe.Darcy at sun.com>:
>   
>> Andrew John Hughes wrote:
>>     
>>> 2009/12/8 Joseph D. Darcy <Joe.Darcy at sun.com>:
>>>
>>>       
>>>> Andrew John Hughes wrote:
>>>>
>>>>         
>>>>> 2009/12/8 Kelly O'Hair <Kelly.Ohair at sun.com>:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>           
>>>>>> Jonathan Gibbons wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>             
>>>>>>> Andrew John Hughes wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>               
>>>>>>>> Finally, during build, I just spotted another issue.  The langtools
>>>>>>>> build wrongly passes -Werror to javac and this has been removed in
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> OpenJDK7 version.  It only shows up if you build OpenJDK6 with
>>>>>>>> OpenJDK7, so it's minor but probably worth fixing.  I doubt that is
>>>>>>>> the only building-with-7 issue though.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>                 
>>>>>> Building OpenJDK6  "with"  OpenJDK7?
>>>>>> You mean with an ALT_BOOTDIR=jdk7? Why?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>             
>>>>> Why not? I happen to have a system install of OpenJDK7 m5 and not
>>>>> OpenJDK6 at present - the reason for that is exactly because you can't
>>>>> install 7 and then use it to build 6.  I've since been able to build
>>>>> OpenJDK6 using a recent build of IcedTea6 (which uses gcj to build).
>>>>> But surely 7 should be able to build 6?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>           
>>>> I suspect the build issue is that the JDK 7 Werror checking is more
>>>> stringent than the OpenJDK 6 error checking and the OpenJDK 6 sources do
>>>> not
>>>> have the fixes necessary to build under JDK 7 using Werror although they
>>>> do
>>>> build under OpenJDK 6 with Werror.
>>>>
>>>> -Joe
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>         
>>> Indeed, the OJ7 version has this fix:
>>>
>>> changeset:   214:9d541fd2916b
>>> parent:      212:49281ea88125
>>> user:        jjg
>>> date:        Fri Feb 06 10:23:57 2009 -0800
>>> summary:     6595666: fix -Werror
>>>
>>> which includes actually documenting the option in the javac output.
>>> I missed Jonathan's later change because I was searching for Werror
>>> rather than checking that file.
>>> Can we backport the warning fixup?
>>>
>>>       
>> I'm open to OpenJDK 6 langtools  being made Werror clean as judged by JDK 7,
>> but backporting the fixes may be nontrivial.  (The Werror checking in JDK
>> 7's javac is more stringent than that in OpenJDK 6.)
>>
>> -Joe
>>
>>     
>
> I think we got sidetracked by the minor mention I made of this.  To go
> back a few steps -- do you have an opinion on the timezone fixes?
>   

Yes; those are approved as I've just replied to the original email.

-Joe