Hi Erik, thanks for the comments, new webrev : http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~mbaesken/webrevs/8236714.7/
Best regards, Matthias > Hello, > > That's better, but there are still some issues. > > flags-cflags.m4 > > Code is repeated in both if and else block. > > jdk-options.m4 > > The default is now true for all platforms. I would suggest moving the > s390x conditional down into an elif after the elif for "no". > > LibCommon.gmk > > Please revert whole file. > > /Erik > > On 2020-01-23 05:15, Baesken, Matthias wrote: > > Hi Erik, new webrev : > > > > http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~mbaesken/webrevs/8236714.6/ > > > > I moved the settings back into the m4 files . > > > > Best regards, Matthias > > > >> Hello Matthias, > >> > >> You can keep the setting up of all the flags in flags-cflags.m4 and > >> flags-ldflags.m4 based on the value of ENABLE_LINKTIME_GC. You can > also > >> default the value of this new parameter to true for s390x to keep the > >> current behavior for that platform. As it is in this patch, the JVM > >> flags for s390x are setup in configure while the JDK flags are in make, > >> which gets confusing I think. > >> > >> /Erik > >> > >> > >> On 2020-01-22 05:33, Baesken, Matthias wrote: > >>> Hi Magnus / David, here is a new webrev : > >>> > >>> > >>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~mbaesken/webrevs/8236714.4/ > >>> > >>> > >>> it supports now a configure switch --enable-linktime-gc=yes that needs > to > >> be set to enable the link time section gc . > >>> Exception is linuxs390x where we already have the feature enabled > (and > >> keep it enabled always for LIB_JVM). > >>> Best regards, Matthias > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> From: Baesken, Matthias > >>> Sent: Freitag, 17. Januar 2020 12:44 > >>> To: Magnus Ihse Bursie <magnus.ihse.bur...@oracle.com>; David > Holmes > >> <david.hol...@oracle.com>; 'build-dev@openjdk.java.net' <build- > >> d...@openjdk.java.net>; 'hotspot-...@openjdk.java.net' <hotspot- > >> d...@openjdk.java.net> > >>> Subject: RE: RFR: 8236714: enable link-time section-gc for linux to > remove > >> unused code > >>> > >>> > >>> * Matthias: Have a look at some recently added option to get an > >> indication of the best practice in adding new options. There are some > ways to > >> easily make this incorrect > >>> Hi Magnus, do you have a good/”best practice” example (not that I > catch a > >> bad one 😉 ) ? > >>> Best regards, Matthias > >>>
