Re: RFR(XS): 8158763 : --disable-hotspot-gtest not working on Solaris

Pushing to jdk9/hs under the "trivial - 1 Reviewer" rule David On 7/06/2016 5:07 PM, Volker Simonis wrote: On Tue, Jun 7, 2016 at 4:28 AM, David Holmes wrote: Hi Volker, On 6/06/2016 11:59 PM, Volker Simonis wrote: Hi, I'd like to get the following tiny bug fix

Re: RFR(S): 8158938: AIX: some more new hotspot build fixes

Looks good to me too! David On 8/06/2016 2:19 AM, Erik Joelsson wrote: Looks good to me. I will sponsor. /Erik On 2016-06-07 18:14, Volker Simonis wrote: Hi, can I please have a review for the following two (top-level and hotspot) AIX-only changes:

Re: RFR(S): 8158938: AIX: some more new hotspot build fixes

Looks good to me. I will sponsor. /Erik On 2016-06-07 18:14, Volker Simonis wrote: Hi, can I please have a review for the following two (top-level and hotspot) AIX-only changes: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~simonis/webrevs/2016/8158938_top/

Re: How is the override mechanism in JvmOverrideFiles.gmk supposed to work?

On Tue, Jun 7, 2016 at 3:37 PM, Erik Joelsson wrote: > Hello Volker, > > On 2016-06-07 15:10, Volker Simonis wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> I've just realized the the override mechanism from >> JvmOverrideFiles.gmk isn't really 'overriding' options but just >> 'appending' new

Re: How is the override mechanism in JvmOverrideFiles.gmk supposed to work?

Hello Volker, On 2016-06-07 15:10, Volker Simonis wrote: Hi, I've just realized the the override mechanism from JvmOverrideFiles.gmk isn't really 'overriding' options but just 'appending' new ones. So for example: BUILD_LIBJVM_sharedRuntimeTrig.cpp_CXXFLAGS := -DNO_PCH $(CXX_O_FLAG_NONE)

How is the override mechanism in JvmOverrideFiles.gmk supposed to work?

Hi, I've just realized the the override mechanism from JvmOverrideFiles.gmk isn't really 'overriding' options but just 'appending' new ones. So for example: BUILD_LIBJVM_sharedRuntimeTrig.cpp_CXXFLAGS := -DNO_PCH $(CXX_O_FLAG_NONE) will not replace the CXXFLAGS flags for sharedRuntimeTrig.cpp

Re: RFR: JDK-8158535: Configure script uses basic tools directly in many places

On 7/06/2016 9:04 PM, Erik Joelsson wrote: Hello, On 2016-06-06 01:36, David Holmes wrote: Hi Erik, On 4/06/2016 1:56 AM, Erik Joelsson wrote: In the configure script we check for the presence of several basic tools, like grep, sed, echo etc, and assign variables for them. In the makefiles

Re: RFR: JDK-8158535: Configure script uses basic tools directly in many places

Hello, On 2016-06-06 01:36, David Holmes wrote: Hi Erik, On 4/06/2016 1:56 AM, Erik Joelsson wrote: In the configure script we check for the presence of several basic tools, like grep, sed, echo etc, and assign variables for them. In the makefiles we are very diligent with always using the

Re: RFR(S): 8154209: Remove client VM from default JIB profile on windows-x86 and linux-x86

Thank you for review. Leonid On 07.06.2016 12:32, David Holmes wrote: On 7/06/2016 7:03 PM, Leonid Mesnik wrote: Hi The testset hotspot is not affected by this change. It run c2 only on windows/linux-x86. Right -sorry - I forgot we already ripped out client testing in 8153071. All good.

Re: RFR(S): 8154209: Remove client VM from default JIB profile on windows-x86 and linux-x86

On 7/06/2016 7:03 PM, Leonid Mesnik wrote: Hi The testset hotspot is not affected by this change. It run c2 only on windows/linux-x86. Right -sorry - I forgot we already ripped out client testing in 8153071. All good. Thanks, David I verified that default target and pit has same results

Re: RFR(S): 8154209: Remove client VM from default JIB profile on windows-x86 and linux-x86

Hi The testset hotspot is not affected by this change. It run c2 only on windows/linux-x86. I verified that default target and pit has same results and similar time as before my fix. Leonid On 27.05.2016 01:09, David Holmes wrote: Hi Leonid, On 27/05/2016 5:00 AM, Leonid Mesnik wrote:

Re: RFR(XS): 8158763 : --disable-hotspot-gtest not working on Solaris

On Tue, Jun 7, 2016 at 4:28 AM, David Holmes wrote: > Hi Volker, > > On 6/06/2016 11:59 PM, Volker Simonis wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> I'd like to get the following tiny bug fix into jdk9-dev. What's the >> current procedure to get this change approved? > > > No approvals