> On Apr 4, 2017, at 12:42 AM, Alan Bateman wrote:
>
> On 03/04/2017 19:41, Mandy Chung wrote:
>
>> Webrev:
>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~mchung/jdk9/webrevs/8175819/webrev.00/
>>
> I went through the updates to jlink, assuming test SystemModulesTest will be
> aligned to the recent mails.
2017/4/4 12:28:18 -0700, [email protected]:
> Don't we need the JEP to be moved from "Proposed To Target" to
> "Targetted" before we can push?
Yep. Coming right up ...
- Mark
On 2017-04-04 21:28, Jonathan Gibbons wrote:
Magnus, Mark,
Don't we need the JEP to be moved from "Proposed To Target" to
"Targetted" before we can push?
I would have assumed that since the patch itself has been code reviewed,
and follows the "noreg-doc" rule, it would be fair game to push,
Magnus, Mark,
Don't we need the JEP to be moved from "Proposed To Target" to
"Targetted" before we can push?
-- Jon
On 04/04/2017 04:47 AM, Magnus Ihse Bursie wrote:
Here is an updated webrev:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~ihse/JDK-8172312-combined-javadocs/webrev.03
The only change compared
> On Apr 4, 2017, at 12:35 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>
> 2017/4/4 8:22:50 -0700, [email protected]:
>> On 04/04/17 16:12, [email protected] wrote:
>>> The trouble here is that "arm64" and "aarch64" are effectively synonyms
>>> for the ISA, but in the JDK we've wound up using them a
On 04/04/17 17:35, [email protected] wrote:
> This does raise another question, though: Should we use "aarch32"
> instead of "arm32" for the 32-bit ARM architecture?
Probably not. I believe that "aarch32" is historical revisionism
coming from ARM: it didn't exist as a name before AArch64 c
2017/4/4 8:22:50 -0700, [email protected]:
> On 04/04/17 16:12, [email protected] wrote:
>> The trouble here is that "arm64" and "aarch64" are effectively synonyms
>> for the ISA, but in the JDK we've wound up using them as the names of
>> two different ports.
>>
>> A JMOD file built for the
> On Apr 4, 2017, at 11:12 AM, [email protected] wrote:
>
> 2017/4/4 1:04:22 -0700, [email protected]:
>> On 2017-04-03 23:50, Mandy Chung wrote:
>>> ...
>>>
>>> JDK 8 JDK 9
>>> - -
>>> OS_NAMELinux linu
On 04/04/17 16:12, [email protected] wrote:
> The trouble here is that "arm64" and "aarch64" are effectively synonyms
> for the ISA, but in the JDK we've wound up using them as the names of
> two different ports.
>
> A JMOD file built for the 64-bit ARM architecture will (one hopes) run
> e
2017/4/4 4:47:58 -0700, [email protected]:
> Here is an updated webrev:
> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~ihse/JDK-8172312-combined-javadocs/webrev.03
>
> The only change compared to the previous webrev is that I have updated
> the title for the JDK javadocs so it does not claim to be Jav
2017/4/4 1:04:22 -0700, [email protected]:
> On 2017-04-03 23:50, Mandy Chung wrote:
>> ...
>>
>>JDK 8 JDK 9
>>- -
>> OS_NAMELinux linux
>>SunOS solaris
>>Darwin
On 2017-04-04 15:10, Erik Joelsson wrote:
Hello,
On 2017-04-04 14:59, Magnus Ihse Bursie wrote:
What is the intention here? You want build the second part of the
boot cycle build without setting -j? Is this because we already have
a good value of -j inherited from an earlier make call?
We
Hello,
On 2017-04-04 14:59, Magnus Ihse Bursie wrote:
What is the intention here? You want build the second part of the boot
cycle build without setting -j? Is this because we already have a good
value of -j inherited from an earlier make call?
We only want to set the -j flag once since rese
What is the intention here? You want build the second part of the boot
cycle build without setting -j? Is this because we already have a good
value of -j inherited from an earlier make call?
The fix looks scary, but that's maybe because all of this make-wrapping
logic is scary.
What if you k
Looks good to me.
/Erik
On 2017-04-04 13:47, Magnus Ihse Bursie wrote:
Here is an updated webrev:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~ihse/JDK-8172312-combined-javadocs/webrev.03
The only change compared to the previous webrev is that I have updated
the title for the JDK javadocs so it does not clai
Hello Alex,
It wasn't a typo, but it was also not correct, as you are pointing out.
Setting JOBS to $(JOBS) would disable the jobserver for the sub make
process and also risk flooding a smaller system. What we really need is
a way to block the setting of -j in the "Init.gmk main" target.
Some
Here is an updated webrev:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~ihse/JDK-8172312-combined-javadocs/webrev.03
The only change compared to the previous webrev is that I have updated
the title for the JDK javadocs so it does not claim to be Java SE.
I have filed the following follow-up bugs to address Mar
Hi,
Currently in jdk9 bootcycle-images make target is executed with
unlimited number of make jobs. May I ask whether "JOBS=" bit here [1] is
intentional or just a typo and should be "JOBS=$(JOBS)" instead?
Current variant works on x86_64 but crashes with native arm32 boot cycle
builds - comp
Oh, I missed the further discussion before I posted this and the webrev
was apparently updated in place to reflect that discussion. Please
ignore my comment below.
/Erik
On 2017-04-04 11:57, Erik Joelsson wrote:
Hello,
I don't quite understand this. In the proposition below it says osx,
an
Hello,
I don't quite understand this. In the proposition below it says osx, and
x64, but in platform.m4 you generate macos and amd64. Does this then get
translated again and why are we introducing yet another name for the
operating system on Apple computers?
/Erik
On 2017-04-03 20:41, Mand
On 03/04/17 19:41, Mandy Chung wrote:
> Webrev:
> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~mchung/jdk9/webrevs/8175819/webrev.00/
>
> This revisits the OS name and arch in packaging JDK modules
> to extend the module descriptor with ModuleTarget class file
> attribute. We considered matching with the system
On 2017-04-03 13:52, Erik Joelsson wrote:
Looks good. A few grammar/spelling corrections:
96: "All tests"
Fixed.
127: "command line"
Fixed.
139: is this still true? I thought you added the default concurrency
behavior from the old hotspot test/Makefile.
Mr Eagle Eye! :-)
Updated to:
De
On 2017-04-03 23:50, Mandy Chung wrote:
On Apr 3, 2017, at 2:39 PM, [email protected] wrote:
2017/4/3 13:35:30 -0700, [email protected]:
On 03/04/2017 21:15, [email protected] wrote:
2017/4/3 11:41:03 -0700, [email protected]:
Webrev:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~mchung/jdk9
On 03/04/2017 19:41, Mandy Chung wrote:
Webrev:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~mchung/jdk9/webrevs/8175819/webrev.00/
I went through the updates to jlink, assuming test SystemModulesTest
will be aligned to the recent mails.
In DefaultImageBuilder.storeFiles then
map(ResourcePoolModule::osNa
24 matches
Mail list logo
