Hi Phil,
On 6/30/2016 7:50 PM, Philip Race wrote:
Eh ? Before your change the code was calling
isAttributeCategorySupported(), not isAttributeValueSupported() So
there was not previously a possibility of that NPE, and my point was
now you have changed that call you need that !=null check even
Hi Jim,
Thanks for your inputs.
I have discussed with Phil also regarding the same issue offline.
I have collated all the changes mentioned by you and Phil in the latest webrev:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~jdv/7107905/webrev.12/
But I was not able to understand your statement - "Arguably, we cou
Hi all,
I want to share task list for building OpenJDK with GCC 6.
* jdk:
- JDK-8160294: reviewing
* hotspot
Subtasks of JDK-8160310:
- JDK-8160353: reviewing (includes patch for JDK-8156980)
- JDK-8160354: reviewing (a part of fix depends on JDK-8156980)
- JDK-8160356:
The separation between OpenJDK and Oracle's closed additions have
historically been quite messy. The build-infra project has tried to
improve on this, but failed in one regard, which was to hard code all
references to "closed" source instead of using a variable. I decided to
finally fix this. A
erik,
SUPPRESS_CUSTOM_SOURCE"
FWIW "CLOSED" implies better to me what this is about than "CUSTOM".
Can't this be SUPPRESS_CLOSED_SOURCE ?
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~erikj/8003593/webrev.01/jdk/make/mapfiles/libfontmanager/mapfile-vers.sdiff.html
Regarding all the freetype symbols in here .. th
On 2016-07-01 19:59, Phil Race wrote:
erik,
SUPPRESS_CUSTOM_SOURCE"
FWIW "CLOSED" implies better to me what this is about than "CUSTOM".
Can't this be SUPPRESS_CLOSED_SOURCE ?
"custom" is a term that we have been using for a while now instead of
"closed" in the open parts of the build to ref
+1 ... although I am a little nervous about FP error causing false
results in some cases.
-phil.
On 06/30/2016 11:10 PM, Prasanta Sadhukhan wrote:
Hi Phil,
Right. I have rectified the calculation. Please find the modified webrev:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~psadhukhan/6789262/webrev.02/
Re
Hi,
You have 3 reviewers (2 client, 1 build) so I am OK for this to be pushed.
If Kim comes back with some more information the a new fix can be devised ..
-phil.
On 06/29/2016 05:44 PM, Philip Race wrote:
Hi,
Not just yet. Whilst I am OK with it ...
1) We like 2 (two) reviewers to approve.
> On Jul 1, 2016, at 4:17 PM, Phil Race wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> You have 3 reviewers (2 client, 1 build) so I am OK for this to be pushed.
> If Kim comes back with some more information the a new fix can be devised ..
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~ysuenaga/JDK-8160294/webrev.01/
looks ok to me too.