On 11/30/16 08:14, Erik Joelsson wrote:
This patch slightly adjusts the matching pattern which identifies the
C/C++ compilers as Solaris Studio/Oracle Developer Studio so that the
new output of 12.5 is also matched. Note that this only makes configure
accept the new version as a valid compiler. T
+1
Mandy
> On Nov 30, 2016, at 6:18 AM, Erik Joelsson wrote:
>
> This patch adds the jdk.unsupported module to the compact profile images.
>
> Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8168924
>
> Patch:
>
> diff -r 2ba99326da3d make/Images.gmk
> --- a/make/Images.gmk
> +++ b/make/Images
This patch slightly adjusts the matching pattern which identifies the
C/C++ compilers as Solaris Studio/Oracle Developer Studio so that the
new output of 12.5 is also matched. Note that this only makes configure
accept the new version as a valid compiler. The build dies almost
immediately due t
Erik:
Looks good to me as well.
Tim
Hello,
Thanks!
Yes, the redefinition is a (minor) reason for concern. I just had a
discussion with Magnus about it. In some cases I would have moved the
definition to spec.gmk.in, which really is the only place to put common
definitions. In this case I ch
Erik:
This patch moves the langtools/test/Makefile one step closer being
alignmened with the rest of the test/*/Makefiles by adding the
-retain:fail,error jtreg option.
Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8168607
Patch:
diff -r ab39653a1e6d test/Makefile
--- a/test/Makefile
+++ b/te
On Wed, Nov 30, 2016 at 6:18 AM, Kumar Srinivasan
wrote:
> Hi Volker et. al.,
>
> Was a bug opened to track this ? I still see these files around
> http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk9/dev/jdk/file/ff45c582ca8a/src/java.base/aix/native/libjli
>
Hi Kumar,
no, as far as I know there's no bug for this i
On 30/11/2016 14:18, Erik Joelsson wrote:
This patch adds the jdk.unsupported module to the compact profile images.
Looks fine.
This patch moves the langtools/test/Makefile one step closer being
alignmened with the rest of the test/*/Makefiles by adding the
-retain:fail,error jtreg option.
Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8168607
Patch:
diff -r ab39653a1e6d test/Makefile
--- a/test/Makefile
+++ b/test/Mak
Looks good to me Erik.
-Chris.
On 30/11/16 14:18, Erik Joelsson wrote:
This patch adds the jdk.unsupported module to the compact profile images.
Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8168924
Patch:
diff -r 2ba99326da3d make/Images.gmk
--- a/make/Images.gmk
+++ b/make/Images.gmk
@@ -4
This patch adds the jdk.unsupported module to the compact profile images.
Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8168924
Patch:
diff -r 2ba99326da3d make/Images.gmk
--- a/make/Images.gmk
+++ b/make/Images.gmk
@@ -48,7 +48,8 @@
JDK_MODULES += $(ALL_MODULES)
# Compact builds have additi
Hello,
Thanks!
Yes, the redefinition is a (minor) reason for concern. I just had a
discussion with Magnus about it. In some cases I would have moved the
definition to spec.gmk.in, which really is the only place to put common
definitions. In this case I chose not to because the file is located
On 2016-11-30 13:26, David Holmes wrote:
Hi Erik,
Seems reasonable. Only query I have is defining BASE_RELEASE_FILE in
two places ?
I reacted to that as well. Otoh, I really don't know where to define it
otherwise. MakeBase.gmk, perhaps? I guess we could consider it to be a
"well-known name
Hi Erik,
Seems reasonable. Only query I have is defining BASE_RELEASE_FILE in two
places ?
Thanks,
David
On 30/11/2016 9:17 PM, Erik Joelsson wrote:
The release file is part of all product images in the build. We used to
generate it for each image individually, but a while back, we changed t
The release file is part of all product images in the build. We used to
generate it for each image individually, but a while back, we changed to
generate it just for the exploded image, and then let jlink use the one
as source for generating individually modified release files for each
linked i
14 matches
Mail list logo
