8034856/8034857: More gcc warnings

[Alan Bateman]

On 17/02/2014 05:51, Mikael Vidstedt wrote:
>
> I'm inclined to agree with this. Since the code depends on a specific 
> behavior of isspace which does not match what the system provided 
> function does I too think it would be more robust to implement our own 
> version of it.
I completely agree that changing this code to use its own isspace is the 
right thing, it just seems a bit much for a drive-by fixed to gcc 
warnings. Do either of you want to take it?

-Alan
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/serviceability-dev/attachments/20140217/9d7b6232/attachment.html