[8u] RFR (S): 8239053: [8u] clean up undefined-var-template warnings

[Volker Simonis]

On Wed, Jun 9, 2021 at 6:24 AM Andrew Hughes <gnu.andrew at redhat.com> wrote:
>
> On 15:44 Fri 14 May     , Hohensee, Paul wrote:
> > Please review this backport to 8u to enable Xcode 12 builds. The patch is a subset of the large Xcode cleanup patch for 8182299.
> >
> > Original JBS issue: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8239053
> > 8u webrev: https://cr.openjdk.java.net/~phh/8239053/webrev.8u.hotspot.00/
> >
> > This is a private Oracle 8u261 issue, so there is no visible commit to use as a basis for the patch. There are no semantic changes, so very low risk.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Paul
> >
>
> There are two patches for 8u with this same description.
> It's not clear to me how it was determined which changes went
> under 8239053 and which under 8239400.
>
> It also appears that 8239053 has been pushed, yet I see no
> jdk8u-fix-yes label and it is still in the approval queue.
>
> What is going on here?
>

Oracle did the two closed downports 8239053 and 8239400 which both
have the same description. Because they are closed, we can not be sure
what went in, we can only look at the bug description which explains
which parts from the rather large change 8182299 went into 8239053 and
8239400 respectively.

As you can see from the extended summary, 8239053 addresses the
"undefined-var-template warnings" part from 8182299 while 8239400
addresses the "delete-non-virtual-dtor warnings" part of 8182299:

https://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk8u/jdk8u/hotspot/rev/4962a2ce077a
8239053: [8u] clean up undefined-var-template warnings
Summary: From 8182299, clean up undefined-var-template warnings

http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk8u/jdk8u/hotspot/rev/32dfc0a37b47
8239400: [8u] clean up undefined-var-template warnings
Summary: From 8182299, clean up delete-non-virtual-dtor warnings in HotSpot

I think the main cause of confusion is that Oracle has used the same
description for both, 8239053 and 8239400 and Paul hasn't changed
that.

I can't answer why 8239053 was pushed without jdk8u-fix-yes label.
That's probably just an oversight.

Best regards,
Volker

> Thanks,
> --
> Andrew :)
>
> Senior Free Java Software Engineer
> OpenJDK Package Owner
> Red Hat, Inc. (http://www.redhat.com)
>
> PGP Key: ed25519/0xCFDA0F9B35964222 (hkp://keys.gnupg.net)
> Fingerprint = 5132 579D D154 0ED2 3E04  C5A0 CFDA 0F9B 3596 4222