Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

8335108: Build error after JDK-8333658 due to class templates #19890

Closed
wants to merge 1 commit into from

Conversation

SoniaZaldana
Copy link
Member

@SoniaZaldana SoniaZaldana commented Jun 25, 2024

Hi all,

This PR addresses 8335108.

The error arises as template-id is not allowed for constructor/destructor in C++20.

Testing:

  • Compilation succeeds with g++ 14.1.1.

Thanks,
Sonia


Progress

  • Change must be properly reviewed (1 review required, with at least 1 Reviewer)
  • Change must not contain extraneous whitespace
  • Commit message must refer to an issue

Issue

  • JDK-8335108: Build error after JDK-8333658 due to class templates (Bug - P4)

Reviewers

Reviewing

Using git

Checkout this PR locally:
$ git fetch https://git.openjdk.org/jdk.git pull/19890/head:pull/19890
$ git checkout pull/19890

Update a local copy of the PR:
$ git checkout pull/19890
$ git pull https://git.openjdk.org/jdk.git pull/19890/head

Using Skara CLI tools

Checkout this PR locally:
$ git pr checkout 19890

View PR using the GUI difftool:
$ git pr show -t 19890

Using diff file

Download this PR as a diff file:
https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/19890.diff

Webrev

Link to Webrev Comment

@bridgekeeper
Copy link

bridgekeeper bot commented Jun 25, 2024

👋 Welcome back szaldana! A progress list of the required criteria for merging this PR into master will be added to the body of your pull request. There are additional pull request commands available for use with this pull request.

@openjdk
Copy link

openjdk bot commented Jun 25, 2024

@SoniaZaldana This change now passes all automated pre-integration checks.

ℹ️ This project also has non-automated pre-integration requirements. Please see the file CONTRIBUTING.md for details.

After integration, the commit message for the final commit will be:

8335108: Build error after JDK-8333658 due to class templates

Reviewed-by: jwaters, jsjolen

You can use pull request commands such as /summary, /contributor and /issue to adjust it as needed.

At the time when this comment was updated there had been 22 new commits pushed to the master branch:

  • 5883a20: 8334437: De-duplicate ProxyMethod list creation
  • 8591eff: 8332103: since-checker - Add missing @ since tags to java.desktop
  • 8374d16: 8335006: C2 SuperWord: add JMH benchmark VectorLoadToStoreForwarding.java
  • 4ffc5e6: 8326705: Test CertMsgCheck.java fails to find alert certificate_required
  • efb905e: 8334618: ubsan: support setting additional ubsan check options
  • b2ac725: 8327380: Add tests for Shenandoah barrier expansion optimization
  • f23295e: 8334600: TEST java/net/MulticastSocket/IPMulticastIF.java fails on linux-aarch64
  • 741a0f3: 8334241: Adjust API docs side bar dimensions
  • 4ce8822: 8334037: Local class creation in lambda in pre-construction context crashes javac
  • 7f6804c: 8334872: BigEndian: java/lang/invoke/condy Tests failing since JDK-8294960
  • ... and 12 more: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/compare/9c89f0861c1b6d25e1a7c3ac1add9a168d807788...master

As there are no conflicts, your changes will automatically be rebased on top of these commits when integrating. If you prefer to avoid this automatic rebasing, please check the documentation for the /integrate command for further details.

As you do not have Committer status in this project an existing Committer must agree to sponsor your change. Possible candidates are the reviewers of this PR (@TheShermanTanker, @jdksjolen) but any other Committer may sponsor as well.

➡️ To flag this PR as ready for integration with the above commit message, type /integrate in a new comment. (Afterwards, your sponsor types /sponsor in a new comment to perform the integration).

@openjdk
Copy link

openjdk bot commented Jun 25, 2024

@SoniaZaldana To determine the appropriate audience for reviewing this pull request, one or more labels corresponding to different subsystems will normally be applied automatically. However, no automatic labelling rule matches the changes in this pull request. In order to have an "RFR" email sent to the correct mailing list, you will need to add one or more applicable labels manually using the /label pull request command.

Applicable Labels
  • build
  • client
  • compiler
  • core-libs
  • graal
  • hotspot
  • hotspot-compiler
  • hotspot-gc
  • hotspot-jfr
  • hotspot-runtime
  • i18n
  • ide-support
  • javadoc
  • jdk
  • jmx
  • kulla
  • net
  • nio
  • security
  • serviceability
  • shenandoah

@SoniaZaldana
Copy link
Member Author

/label hotspot

@openjdk openjdk bot added the hotspot hotspot-dev@openjdk.org label Jun 25, 2024
@openjdk
Copy link

openjdk bot commented Jun 25, 2024

@SoniaZaldana
The hotspot label was successfully added.

Copy link
Contributor

@TheShermanTanker TheShermanTanker left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Ah, this annoying g++ issue again. I honestly don't like that we have to adhere to C++20 without any of its benefits while being on C++14, but I think Kim has mentioned that this is a desirable warning to have, so approved

Copy link
Contributor

@jdksjolen jdksjolen left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Still in draft, but LGTM.

@SoniaZaldana SoniaZaldana marked this pull request as ready for review June 26, 2024 16:08
@openjdk openjdk bot added ready Pull request is ready to be integrated rfr Pull request is ready for review labels Jun 26, 2024
@mlbridge
Copy link

mlbridge bot commented Jun 26, 2024

Webrevs

@SoniaZaldana
Copy link
Member Author

/integrate

@openjdk openjdk bot added the sponsor Pull request is ready to be sponsored label Jun 26, 2024
@openjdk
Copy link

openjdk bot commented Jun 26, 2024

@SoniaZaldana
Your change (at version 141eced) is now ready to be sponsored by a Committer.

@TheShermanTanker
Copy link
Contributor

/sponsor

@openjdk
Copy link

openjdk bot commented Jun 26, 2024

Going to push as commit b5d5896.
Since your change was applied there have been 22 commits pushed to the master branch:

  • 5883a20: 8334437: De-duplicate ProxyMethod list creation
  • 8591eff: 8332103: since-checker - Add missing @ since tags to java.desktop
  • 8374d16: 8335006: C2 SuperWord: add JMH benchmark VectorLoadToStoreForwarding.java
  • 4ffc5e6: 8326705: Test CertMsgCheck.java fails to find alert certificate_required
  • efb905e: 8334618: ubsan: support setting additional ubsan check options
  • b2ac725: 8327380: Add tests for Shenandoah barrier expansion optimization
  • f23295e: 8334600: TEST java/net/MulticastSocket/IPMulticastIF.java fails on linux-aarch64
  • 741a0f3: 8334241: Adjust API docs side bar dimensions
  • 4ce8822: 8334037: Local class creation in lambda in pre-construction context crashes javac
  • 7f6804c: 8334872: BigEndian: java/lang/invoke/condy Tests failing since JDK-8294960
  • ... and 12 more: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/compare/9c89f0861c1b6d25e1a7c3ac1add9a168d807788...master

Your commit was automatically rebased without conflicts.

@openjdk openjdk bot added the integrated Pull request has been integrated label Jun 26, 2024
@openjdk openjdk bot closed this Jun 26, 2024
@openjdk openjdk bot removed ready Pull request is ready to be integrated rfr Pull request is ready for review sponsor Pull request is ready to be sponsored labels Jun 26, 2024
@openjdk
Copy link

openjdk bot commented Jun 26, 2024

@TheShermanTanker @SoniaZaldana Pushed as commit b5d5896.

💡 You may see a message that your pull request was closed with unmerged commits. This can be safely ignored.

@kimbarrett
Copy link

Coming late to the party, since y'all forgot the 24 hour rule for integrating
changes, unless there is mutual agreement that it's a trivial change.

Change looks good, and indeed I'd have agreed with a suggestion that it's
trivial. I think fixing this kind of thing is worthwhile since the template
parameters add nothing and just promote confusion. (Which is likely why the
later standard removed them.) We might use C++20 someday, but I'm guessing
not soon; there are a fair number of changes that impact us.

@TheShermanTanker
Copy link
Contributor

I guess you learn something new every day, since this is the first time I'm hearing about the 24 hour rule (I always thought the only HotSpot requirement was 2 Reviewers, besides needing a 2 week waiting periods for Style Guide changes, never knew you had to wait 24 hours for regular ones too). It's a good thing this change was trivial in the end

@kimbarrett
Copy link

I guess you learn something new every day, since this is the first time I'm hearing about the 24 hour rule (I always thought the only HotSpot requirement was 2 Reviewers, besides needing a 2 week waiting periods for Style Guide changes, never knew you had to wait 24 hours for regular ones too). It's a good thing this change was trivial in the end

It's a JDK rule, not specific to HotSpot.
https://openjdk.org/guide/
Life of a PR
6. Allow enough time for review

https://github.com/openjdk/guide/blame/95f1cd24c657c7837c359c7ba1a80e15319bcd15/src/guide/working-with-pull-requests.md#L77-L80

I don't remember where that requirement originally came from, before being incorporated into the guide. I thought
there was someplace old but public that prescribed 1 Reviewer and 24 hours, but can't find it right now. Maybe it was in the openjdk.org contributing or sponsoring pages and got cleaned up when added to the guide?

@tstuefe
Copy link
Member

tstuefe commented Jun 27, 2024

I guess you learn something new every day, since this is the first time I'm hearing about the 24 hour rule (I always thought the only HotSpot requirement was 2 Reviewers, besides needing a 2 week waiting periods for Style Guide changes, never knew you had to wait 24 hours for regular ones too). It's a good thing this change was trivial in the end

Its a rule that makes a lot of sense. Especially nowadays, post the xz-fiasco.

@dholmes-ora
Copy link
Member

I will claim the 24 hour rule is a generalization of "don't integrate before David in Australia has a chance to take a look" :D

@SoniaZaldana
Copy link
Member Author

@kimbarrett Understood, thanks for bringing that to my attention. Luckily the change was trivial this time but I will note that for the future.

@tstuefe
Copy link
Member

tstuefe commented Jun 27, 2024

I will claim the 24 hour rule is a generalization of "don't integrate before David in Australia has a chance to take a look" :D

I will now call it the David-Rule.

@dholmes-ora
Copy link
Member

The 24-hour rule is mentioned here:

https://openjdk.org/guide/#life-of-a-pr

  1. Allow enough time for review

In general all PRs should be open for at least 24 hours to allow for reviewers in all time zones to get a chance to see it. It may actually happen that even 24 hours isn’t enough. Take into account weekends, holidays, and vacation times throughout the world and you’ll realize that a change that requires more than just a trivial review may have to be open for a while. In some areas [trivial] changes are allowed to be pushed without the 24 hour delay. Ask your reviewers if you think this applies to your change.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
hotspot hotspot-dev@openjdk.org integrated Pull request has been integrated
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

6 participants