8207011: Remove uses of the register storage class specifier

[jankratochvil]

Make jdk8 natively buildable on a recent Linux system (tested Fedora 40 = gcc-14.1).
Cherry-pick was not clean but removing register is a simple task.
There will be 8 backports needed.

---

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
• JDK-8207011 needs maintainer approval

Issue

• JDK-8207011: Remove uses of the register storage class specifier (Enhancement - P4)

Reviewing

Using git

Checkout this PR locally:
$ git fetch https://git.openjdk.org/jdk8u-dev.git pull/508/head:pull/508
$ git checkout pull/508

Update a local copy of the PR:
$ git checkout pull/508
$ git pull https://git.openjdk.org/jdk8u-dev.git pull/508/head

Using Skara CLI tools

Checkout this PR locally:
$ git pr checkout 508

View PR using the GUI difftool:
$ git pr show -t 508

Using diff file

Download this PR as a diff file:
https://git.openjdk.org/jdk8u-dev/pull/508.diff

Webrev

Link to Webrev Comment

[bridgekeeper]

👋 Welcome back jkratochvil! 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]

❗ This change is not yet ready to be integrated.
See the Progress checklist in the description for automated requirements.

[openjdk]

This backport pull request has now been updated with issue from the original commit.

[mlbridge]

Webrevs

• 00: Full (9a51e3c2)

[jankratochvil]

There should be -std=gnu++98 but for some reason some (all?) source files do not use it, to be investigated more.

[zzambers]

There should be -std=gnu++98 but for some reason some (all?) source files do not use it, to be investigated more.

AFAIK this is work in progress by @gnu-andrew in: #357

[gnu-andrew]

There should be -std=gnu++98 but for some reason some (all?) source files do not use it, to be investigated more.

AFAIK this is work in progress by @gnu-andrew in: #357

Thanks. Yes, that should solve this problem without having to adjust the source code and should now be ready for review. I'll see if I can get some people to give it a fresh look.