Summary: | Large number of warnings causes performance issues | ||
---|---|---|---|
Product: | [Eclipse Project] JDT | Reporter: | Boris Bokowski <bokowski> |
Component: | Core | Assignee: | Olivier Thomann <Olivier_Thomann> |
Status: | VERIFIED INVALID | QA Contact: | |
Severity: | normal | ||
Priority: | P3 | CC: | amj87.iitr, daniel_megert, ernest, Olivier_Thomann, philippe_mulet, srikanth_sankaran |
Version: | 3.4 | Keywords: | performance |
Target Milestone: | 3.6 M5 | ||
Hardware: | PC | ||
OS: | Windows XP | ||
Whiteboard: |
Description
Boris Bokowski
2008-09-11 16:27:46 EDT
Interesting data. Indeed Java 1.4 code is doomed in 1.5 compliance level. In the past, we restrained the amount of problems generated by introducing some maximum numbers of problems per unit; and blocked builds in presence of broken buildpath. We avoid secondary errors in quite some cases already, and we already have a limit of 100 problems per file (configurable option), but if every single file is producing 100 of them, in this scenario, we end up with tons of warnings still. Couple thoughts: - the unchecked warnings are enabled per default - the raw type warnings are enabled per default Ernest - can you quantify if you are getting overhelmed by raw type warnings or not ? Maybe we could default for these to be ignored ? (leave them up to users) Or at least not report the problem more than once per method ? Clearly this is a case where some warnings should be removed. Ernest, could you please provide the requested information? (In reply to comment #2) > Clearly this is a case where some warnings should be removed. Ernest, could you > please provide the requested information? Sorry I missed this question earlier. Boris copied my comments from bug 244631, so the analysis is from me initially from the workspace I had a hold of. "2) Then I grouped the markers by Java Problem type and found 131,702 out of 186,374 (71%) were due to type safety and raw types warnings. These type safety and raw type warnings contribute to 58% of the markers here on the entire workspace." Is this what you guys are looking for? In this case these warnings should be disabled in such settings. I am not aware of cases where we report warnings that should not be reported. We will always have a performance hit when you reach hundreds of thousands of warnings. I would close as WONTFIX. Reopen if you believe this is worth investigating time to handle that case better. Verified for 3.6M5 Verified. |