Thanks David, can I add you as a reviewer ?
Unfortunately the jdk/jdk Solaris sparc results are currently so broken
(with or without the change) that it is hard to tell what difference it
really makes ...
Best regards, Matthias
> -----Original Message-----
> From: David Holmes <david.hol...@oracle.com>
> Sent: Dienstag, 18. Dezember 2018 09:45
> To: Baesken, Matthias <matthias.baes...@sap.com>; 2d-
> d...@openjdk.java.net; erik.joels...@oracle.com; 'build-
> d...@openjdk.java.net' <build-dev@openjdk.java.net>; awt-
> d...@openjdk.java.net; 'magnus.ihse.bur...@oracle.com'
> <magnus.ihse.bur...@oracle.com>
> Subject: Re: RFR: [OpenJDK 2D-Dev] JDK-8215296 do not disable c99 on
> Solaris
>
> On 18/12/2018 6:02 pm, Baesken, Matthias wrote:
> > Hi David, thanks for the update on your internal builds . Same is true for
> our internal builds .
> >
> > Regarding C99 with -Xa set :
> >
> >>>
> >>> It's not at all clear to me that C99-isms will be allowed if -Xa is set.
> >>>
> >
> > The C99 features I tested are allowed when -Xa is set (tested with SS12
> update 4) -
>
> Thanks for the info. Seems okay for now then.
>
> David
>
> > -Xa is set, without other compile flags :
> >
> > bash-4.1$ /compiler/SS12u4-Oct2017/SUNWspro/bin/cc bool.c -Xa -o bool
> > bash-4.1$ ./bool
> > b is true.
> > a: 1
> >
> > -Xa is set together with the old flag forbidding C99 , this leads to
> > a lot of
> compile errors :
> >
> > bash-4.1$ /compiler/SS12u4-Oct2017/SUNWspro/bin/cc bool.c -
> xc99=%none -Xa -o bool
> > "bool.c", line 5: undefined symbol: bool
> > "bool.c", line 5: syntax error before or at: b
> > "bool.c", line 6: undefined symbol: b
> > "bool.c", line 9: syntax error before or at: /
> > "bool.c", line 12: undefined symbol: a
> > cc: acomp failed for bool.c
> >
> > The example program contains bool , C++-style comments and
> declaration of a after the if-statement.
> >
> > bash-4.1$ more bool.c
> > #include <stdio.h>
> > #include <stdbool.h>
> >
> > int main() {
> > bool b = true;
> > if (b) {
> > printf("b is true.\n");
> > }
> > // C++ style comments
> > // decl.
> > int a = 1;
> > printf("a: %d \n", a);
> >
> > return 0;
> > }
> >
> >
> > Best regards, Matthias
> >
> >
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: David Holmes <david.hol...@oracle.com>
> >> Sent: Dienstag, 18. Dezember 2018 01:24
> >> To: Baesken, Matthias <matthias.baes...@sap.com>; 2d-
> >> d...@openjdk.java.net; erik.joels...@oracle.com; 'build-
> >> d...@openjdk.java.net' <build-dev@openjdk.java.net>; awt-
> >> d...@openjdk.java.net; 'magnus.ihse.bur...@oracle.com'
> >> <magnus.ihse.bur...@oracle.com>
> >> Subject: Re: RFR: [OpenJDK 2D-Dev] JDK-8215296 do not disable c99 on
> >> Solaris
> >>
> >> Our internal builds pass okay.
> >>
> >> David
> >>
> >> On 18/12/2018 8:02 am, David Holmes wrote:
> >>> Hi Matthias,
> >>>
> >>> On 17/12/2018 11:12 pm, Baesken, Matthias wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> Hello, please review
> >>>>
> >>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~mbaesken/webrevs/8215296.0/
> >>>>
> >>>> in my change just -xc99=%none is removed, so we do not forbid c99
> >>>> coding.
> >>>>
> >>>> The -Xa compile flag is kept, no special additional settings are
> >>>> needed to compile png/awt .
> >>>
> >>> It's not at all clear to me that C99-isms will be allowed if -Xa is set.
> >>>
> >>> I don't think jdk-submit tests Solaris. I'm putting this through our
> >>> internal builds.
> >>>
> >>> Thanks,
> >>> David
> >>>
> >
