Review Request: 7193406 - Clean-up JDK Build Warnings in java.util, java.io (original) (raw)

Kurchi Subhra Hazra kurchi.subhra.hazra at oracle.com
Wed Aug 29 06:33:50 UTC 2012

Thanks for cleaning up those spaces Dan. The changes look fine. Sorry for the extra trouble!

On 8/28/12 10:22 PM, Dan Xu wrote:

It is funny. :) I have searched all source codes under jdk and removed spaces for the similar cases.

Please review the new version of change at, http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~dxu/7193406/webrev.03/. Thanks for your comment! -Dan

On 08/28/2012 05:32 PM, Kurchi Hazra wrote: Irony of the day - those changes were done by me! (http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~khazra/7157893/webrev.02/) :D

They were probably a mistake/oversight. I guess the better way is without those extra spaces. See http://docs.oracle.com/javase/tutorial/java/javaOO/annotations.html. If you have time, maybe you can remove those spaces I put in as a part of this CR. Thanks! Kurchi On 8/28/2012 5:23 PM, Dan Xu wrote: I also thought the space was not needed. But when I made the changes, I found that many similar codes had the space when two or more warning types need to be suppressed. For example, java/util/Collections.java, java/util/Arrays.java, java/util/ComparableTimSort.java, and etc. If only one warning type needs to be suppressed, I don't see the space in our codes. Thanks!

-Dan

On 08/28/2012 05:08 PM, Kurchi Hazra wrote: I don't think you need the space before "unchecked" and the one after "rawtypes" in lines 128 and 147 in http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~dxu/7193406/webrev.02/src/share/classes/java/util/PropertyResourceBundle.java.sdiff.html. - Kurchi On 8/28/2012 4:57 PM, Dan Xu wrote: Thanks for all your good suggestions! I have updated my changes, which revoke changes to makefiles and put @SuppressWarnings outside methods instead of introducing local variables for small methods. The webrev is at http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~dxu/7193406/webrev.02/. Thanks! -Dan On 08/27/2012 04:33 PM, Stuart Marks wrote: On 8/27/12 3:55 AM, Doug Lea wrote: The underlying issue is that code size is one of the criteria that JITs use to decide to compile/inline etc. So long as they do so, there will be cases here and there where it critically important to keep sizes small in bottleneck code. Not many, but still enough for me to object to efforts that might blindly increase code size for the sake of warnings cleanup. I'm pleased that warnings cleanup has attracted this much attention. :-) I was wondering where rule about @SuppressWarnings and local variables originally came from, and I tracked this back to Effective Java, Item 24, which says (as part of a fairly long discussion) If you find yourself using the SuppressWarnings annotation on a method or constructor that's more than one line long, you may be able to move it onto a local variable declaration. You may have to declare a new local variable, but it's worth it. Aha! So it's all Josh Bloch's fault! :-) In the warnings cleanup thus far, and in Dan's webrev, we've followed this rule fairly strictly. But since we seem to have evidence that this change isn't worth it, we should consider relaxing the rule for performance-critical code. How about adding a local variable for @SuppressWarnings only if the method is, say, longer than ten lines? (Or some other suitable threshold.) For short methods the annotation should be placed on the method itself. The risk of suppressing other warnings inadvertently is pretty small in a short method, and short methods are the ones most likely to be impacted by the addition of a local variable affecting compilation/inlining decisions. Right? (Also, while I've recommended that people follow the local variable rule fairly strictly, I think it tends to garbage up short methods. So I wouldn't mind seeing the rule relaxed on readability grounds as well.) s'marks

-- -Kurchi

More information about the core-libs-dev mailing list