Mark Wielaard wrote: > On Sun, 2009-07-12 at 15:00 -0400, Orcan Ogetbil wrote: >> On Sun, Jul 12, 2009 at 1:54 PM, Mark Wielaard wrote: >>> I am curious. What was the problem using gcj? >> Check the link above. It gave some 3000+ mysterious compilation >> warnings, compared to 68 using openjdk: > > I must be missing something. It does look like those warnings are > genuine. Isn't it just the case that gcj has more warnings (enabled) by > default? It's just ecj. ecj comes out with millions of warnings. Basically, it's the compiler saying "I don't like your coding style. Please try to be a better programmer and I'll shut up." I think the compiler should just STFU anyway and get on with its job. The Sun javac equivalent for ecj's default is -Xlint, in which case it emits nearly as many warnings as ecj. But this only happens if you increase the maximum warning count; otherwise it just prints the first 100 warnings. I don't know why IBM chose to make warnings=on the default, unlike Sun and just about every other compiler provider. But Sun still prints a few really useful warnings, even without -Xlint. I don't think there is an ecj equivalent of Sun's default. Now that we've got a separate ecj RPM we could provide one. Andrew. -- fedora-devel-java-list mailing list fedora-devel-java-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-java-list
