8290900: Build failure with Clang 14+ due to function warning attribute

[caoman]

Hi all,

Could anyone review this change that fixes build failure with Clang 14+?
The plan is to disable the warning attribute introduced by JDK-8214976, until llvm/llvm-project#56519 is fixed and released.

-Man

---

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-8290900: Build failure with Clang 14+ due to function warning attribute

Reviewers

• Kim Barrett (@kimbarrett - Reviewer)

Reviewing

Using git

Checkout this PR locally:
$ git fetch https://git.openjdk.org/jdk pull/9621/head:pull/9621
$ git checkout pull/9621

Update a local copy of the PR:
$ git checkout pull/9621
$ git pull https://git.openjdk.org/jdk pull/9621/head

Using Skara CLI tools

Checkout this PR locally:
$ git pr checkout 9621

View PR using the GUI difftool:
$ git pr show -t 9621

Using diff file

Download this PR as a diff file:
https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/9621.diff

[bridgekeeper]

👋 Welcome back manc! 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]

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

• hotspot

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.

[mlbridge]

Webrevs

• 00: Full (53bc9c80)

[kimbarrett]

Looks good.

Please create an OpenJDK RFE to reinstate the feature once there is a clang
version that is known to work.

I'm also not sure why one would even want this new attribute if it isn't
additive. (And how do forward declarations deal with non-additive
attributes?) If one is the provider of a library and so providing the "first"
declaration, and have decided this library function shouldn't be used any more
while still providing it for backward compatibility, well, that's what
deprecation warnings are for. The use-case from OpenJDK is a client of a
library deciding (for whatever reasons) the client code shouldn't
(casually/normally) use this library function, so marks it accordingly when
compiling client code.

[openjdk]

@caoman 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:

8290900: Build failure with Clang 14+ due to function warning attribute

Reviewed-by: kbarrett

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 no new commits pushed to the master branch. If another commit should be pushed before you perform the /integrate command, your PR will be automatically rebased. If you prefer to avoid any potential 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.

[caoman]

Thanks for the review.

Opened https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8290903 to reinstate the feature.

I'm also not sure why one would even want this new attribute if it isn't additive.

https://reviews.llvm.org/D106030 and ClangBuiltLinux/linux#1173 might have some explanation. It seems to support some use cases in Linux kernel, so Clang issues warning/errors at compile time instead of link time.

There is also a pre-submit test failure, which looks like being investigated in https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8290885.

[caoman]

/integrate

[openjdk]

Going to push as commit 0599a05.

[openjdk]

@caoman Pushed as commit 0599a05.

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

[kimbarrett]

@caoman - as a HotSpot change, this should have had a second reviewer before being integrated.

[caoman]

Oh, sorry about that.
I saw this under "Progress":

Change must be properly reviewed (1 review required, with at least 1 Reviewer)

I guess it didn't take into account the rules of different subcomponents.