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

8223188: Removed unnecessary #ifdef __cplusplus from .cpp sources #2466

Closed

Conversation

@alexeysemenyukoracle
Copy link
Member

@alexeysemenyukoracle alexeysemenyukoracle commented Feb 8, 2021

Remove needless #ifdef __cplusplus from .cpp sources


Progress

  • Change must not contain extraneous whitespace
  • Commit message must refer to an issue
  • Change must be properly reviewed

Issue

  • JDK-8223188: Removed unnecessary #ifdef __cplusplus from .cpp sources

Reviewers

Download

$ git fetch https://git.openjdk.java.net/jdk pull/2466/head:pull/2466
$ git checkout pull/2466

@bridgekeeper
Copy link

@bridgekeeper bridgekeeper bot commented Feb 8, 2021

👋 Welcome back asemenyuk! 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 openjdk bot added the rfr label Feb 8, 2021
@openjdk
Copy link

@openjdk openjdk bot commented Feb 8, 2021

@alexeysemenyukoracle The following label will be automatically applied to this pull request:

  • core-libs

When this pull request is ready to be reviewed, an "RFR" email will be sent to the corresponding mailing list. If you would like to change these labels, use the /label pull request command.

@openjdk openjdk bot added the core-libs label Feb 8, 2021
@mlbridge
Copy link

@mlbridge mlbridge bot commented Feb 8, 2021

Webrevs

@openjdk
Copy link

@openjdk openjdk bot commented Feb 8, 2021

@alexeysemenyukoracle 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:

8223188: Removed unnecessary #ifdef __cplusplus from .cpp sources

Reviewed-by: herrick, almatvee, iklam

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 20 new commits pushed to the master branch:

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.

➡️ To integrate this PR with the above commit message to the master branch, type /integrate in a new comment.

@openjdk openjdk bot added the ready label Feb 8, 2021
Copy link
Member

@iklam iklam left a comment

The Bug Synopsis of 'Consider rewriting in C++ or moving to ".c" files' is unclear.
I would request that the Bug Synopsis to be changed to "removed unnecessary #ifdef __cplusplus" before integrating this PR.

@alexeysemenyukoracle alexeysemenyukoracle changed the title 8223188: Consider rewriting in C++ or moving to ".c" files 8223188: Removed unnecessary #ifdef __cplusplus from .cpp sources Feb 9, 2021
@alexeysemenyukoracle alexeysemenyukoracle force-pushed the alexeysemenyukoracle:JDK-8223188 branch from e924131 to bd1c3af Feb 9, 2021
@alexeysemenyukoracle
Copy link
Member Author

@alexeysemenyukoracle alexeysemenyukoracle commented Feb 9, 2021

The Bug Synopsis of 'Consider rewriting in C++ or moving to ".c" files' is unclear.
I would request that the Bug Synopsis to be changed to "removed unnecessary #ifdef __cplusplus" before integrating this PR.

Bug Synopsis updated as suggested.

@iklam
iklam approved these changes Feb 9, 2021
@kevinrushforth
Copy link
Member

@kevinrushforth kevinrushforth commented Feb 9, 2021

@alexeysemenyukoracle FYI, there was no need to force-push (or even push at all) to your branch. It doesn't matter at all what the commit message(s) of the commit(s) in the source branch are. Skara will use the title of the PR, which needs to match the JBS bug, as the final commit message.

@alexeysemenyukoracle
Copy link
Member Author

@alexeysemenyukoracle alexeysemenyukoracle commented Feb 9, 2021

@alexeysemenyukoracle FYI, there was no need to force-push (or even push at all) to your branch. It doesn't matter at all what the commit message(s) of the commit(s) in the source branch are. Skara will use the title of the PR, which needs to match the JBS bug, as the final commit message.

Thank you! I was wondering how it picks up a message for squashed commit that goes in open jdk repo. Now I know.

@alexeysemenyukoracle
Copy link
Member Author

@alexeysemenyukoracle alexeysemenyukoracle commented Feb 9, 2021

/integrate

@openjdk openjdk bot closed this Feb 9, 2021
@openjdk openjdk bot added integrated and removed ready rfr labels Feb 9, 2021
@openjdk
Copy link

@openjdk openjdk bot commented Feb 9, 2021

@alexeysemenyukoracle Since your change was applied there have been 28 commits pushed to the master branch:

  • 05c6009: 8259656: fixpath.sh changes broke _NT_SYMBOL_PATH in RunTests.gmk
  • ef7ee3f: 8225081: Remove Telia Company CA certificate expiring in April 2021
  • 7c565f8: 8261209: isStandalone property: remove dependency on pretty-print
  • 01d9280: 8261299: Use-after-free on failure path in LinuxPackage.c, getJvmLauncherLibPath
  • a00b130: 8261356: Clean up enum G1Mark
  • becee64: 8261279: sun/util/resources/cldr/TimeZoneNamesTest.java timed out
  • f395ee0: 8261306: ServiceLoader documentation has malformed Unicode escape
  • 8f4c15f: 8198540: Dynalink leaks memory when generating type converters
  • edd5fc8: 8261096: Convert jlink tool to use Stream.toList()
  • 2f893c2: 8260337: Optimize ImageReader lookup, used by Class.getResource
  • ... and 18 more: https://git.openjdk.java.net/jdk/compare/48c932e1f1e5a79a28211f72dc9f10d8fd30b955...master

Your commit was automatically rebased without conflicts.

Pushed as commit 699a3cd.

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

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
5 participants