I'm OK with this.
-- Jon
On 04/05/2012 01:51 AM, Erik Joelsson wrote:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~erikj/build-infra-m1/webrev-langtools-new.03/
<http://cr.openjdk.java.net/%7Eerikj/build-infra-m1/webrev-langtools-new.03/>
Addressed the comments below.
Leaving GenStubs functionality active, but with just one class, for
demo purposes and to keep exercising the functionality for now. At a
later stage we should make it optional.
For our compare script to keep reporting success, I will leave the
javax.tools.JavaCompilerTool in there, with the explaining comment.
If this looks ok, we have had the reviews out for a week and no other
major concerns or protests. Does that mean Kelly could start pushing
this into the build forest later today?
/Erik
On 2012-04-04 16:56, Jonathan Gibbons wrote:
In langtools/Makefile,
line 42, bad/inappropriate/editorial comment:
"A more palatable solution would be to add the GenStubs functionality
to javac."
It would be totally unacceptable to add GenStubs to javac, so the
comment is irrelevant.
line 120, 130-138, the nio files are not required when building on JDK 7.
line 179, what is "javax.tools.JavaCompilerTool" and why is it listed
as in RESOURCE_SUFFIXES
line 194, is the JARMAIN required? It should not be used downstream,
so does it need to be set here?
-- Jon
On 04/04/2012 07:41 AM, Erik Joelsson wrote:
One final review update. Cleanup of configure help output and make
help target in root repo.
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~erikj/build-infra-m1/webrev-root-new.03/
<http://cr.openjdk.java.net/%7Eerikj/build-infra-m1/webrev-root-new.03/>
/Erik
On 2012-04-03 11:59, Erik Joelsson wrote:
Fixed these comments and posted new webrevs:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~erikj/build-infra-m1/webrev-corba-new.02/
<http://cr.openjdk.java.net/%7Eerikj/build-infra-m1/webrev-corba-new.02/>
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~erikj/build-infra-m1/webrev-langtools-new.02/
<http://cr.openjdk.java.net/%7Eerikj/build-infra-m1/webrev-langtools-new.02/>
(Tried making a single webrev but my forest extension isn't working
that well)
/Erik
On 2012-03-30 20:08, Kelly O'Hair wrote:
Corba Makefile says: 45 # Thus we force the target bytecode to 6.
But I think 6 should be 7, or better yet "...the
boot
jdk target bytecode."
Everything else looks ok
to
me.
-kto
On 2012-03-30 15:19, Jonathan Gibbons wrote:
langtools makefile...
line 55 typo in comment "ony"
line 57 grammar in comment "list of to be created"
The Swedish examples are somewhat silly since there are no swedish
properties files.
The comments on line 92--94 are inaccurate: javac is only build
twice, not three times.
line 130: grammar, should be either "strip them of all content" or
"strip all content from them"
line 168: not clear what "this setup" refers to.
-- Jon
