FYI, here's the results of qpush -a...I notice the compiler.inline patch isn't applying because it's -testable:
~/projects/davinci ➔ sh patches/make/each-patch-repo.sh 'hg qpush -a' + (cd sources/hotspot; hg qpush -a) applying 6833129.patch applying 6873116.patch applying meth-6862576.patch applying meth.patch applying nonperm.patch applying meth.walker.patch applying indy.patch applying indy.compiler.patch skipping indy.compiler.inline.patch - guarded by '-testable' skipping indy-amd64.patch - guarded by '-buildable' skipping indy-sparc.patch - guarded by '-buildable' skipping meth.proj.patch - guarded by ['+projects'] skipping anonk.proj.patch - guarded by ['+projects'] skipping annot.patch - guarded by '-testable' skipping inti.patch - guarded by '-buildable' skipping callcc.patch - guarded by '-testable' skipping tailc.patch - guarded by ['+tailc-lazy'] skipping tailc-eager.patch - guarded by ['+tailc-lazy'] now at: indy.compiler.patch + (cd sources/jdk; hg qpush -a) applying indy.tests.patch applying indy.pack.patch applying indy.patch skipping dyncast.patch - guarded by ['+dyncast'] skipping inti.patch - guarded by '-buildable' skipping callcc.patch - guarded by '-testable' skipping tailc.patch - guarded by ['+tailc'] now at: indy.patch + (cd sources/langtools; hg qpush -a) applying meth.patch skipping dyncast.patch - guarded by ['+dyncast'] skipping tailc.patch - guarded by ['+tailc'] now at: meth.patch On Sun, Aug 23, 2009 at 3:47 AM, Charles Oliver Nutter<[email protected]> wrote: > Ok...I did an updated build, and things are definitely better in the > crash department. But I wonder if I'm not getting all the appropriate > patches applied... > > client still crashes for me with bench_fib_recursive, but server runs > successfully, albeit very slowly, about 10x slower than non-indy > execution. > > Other simple scripts don't seem to crash at all now, which is also good. > > I've attached the crash output...let me know if there's anything else > I can provide (like confirmation of head revisions, etc). > > On Fri, Aug 21, 2009 at 1:37 PM, John Rose<[email protected]> wrote: >> Yes! Thanks for slogging through this one, Christian. >> >> -- John (on my iPhone) >> >> On Aug 21, 2009, at 5:52 AM, Christian Thalinger <[email protected] >> > wrote: >> >>> Hi! >>> >>> Sorry for the long delay on this one, but we had to sort out some >>> stuff >>> about this patch upstream. >>> >>> Finally, this change fixes the crashes you have seen in javac (no need >>> for -J-Xint anymore). Please let me know if something still fails. >>> >>> -- Christian >>> _______________________________________________ >>> mlvm-dev mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> http://mail.openjdk.java.net/mailman/listinfo/mlvm-dev >> _______________________________________________ >> mlvm-dev mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://mail.openjdk.java.net/mailman/listinfo/mlvm-dev >> > _______________________________________________ mlvm-dev mailing list [email protected] http://mail.openjdk.java.net/mailman/listinfo/mlvm-dev
