Re: RFR: JDK-8180322 Move JNI spec to specs directory

2017-06-01 Thread Mandy Chung
> On Jun 1, 2017, at 5:46 AM, Magnus Ihse Bursie > wrote: > > The JNI spec will move to a new place in the "specs" directory in the docs > image, and links to it needs to be updated. > > Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8180322 > WebRev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~ihse/JDK-81803

Re: RFR: JDK-8180322 Move JNI spec to specs directory

2017-06-01 Thread David Holmes
Hi Magnus, Serviceability owns the jvmti.xml file, so cc'd. The changes to externalink seem okay (I assume the GetEnv -> getenv change is not significant?). The patch file seems to contain a bazillion whitespace changes so you might want to check what is going on there. Thanks, David On 1

Re: RFR (2xS): 8181318: Allow C++ library headers on Solaris Studio

2017-06-01 Thread David Holmes
Hi Erik, On 2/06/2017 12:50 AM, Erik Österlund wrote: Hi David, On 2017-06-01 14:33, David Holmes wrote: Hi Erik, Just to be clear it is not the use of that I am concerned about, it is the -library=stlport4. It is the use of that flag that I would want to check in terms of having no affect

Re: RFR 9: (doclint) 8181156 html5 doclint issues in java.base javadoc

2017-06-01 Thread Magnus Ihse Bursie
Looks good! /Magnus > 1 juni 2017 kl. 16:23 skrev Roger Riggs : > > Thanks, > > Webrev updated in place. > build: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~rriggs/webrev-top-html5-8181156/ > > Roger > >> On 6/1/2017 9:46 AM, Magnus Ihse Bursie wrote: >> >> >>> On 2017-06-01 15:29, Roger Riggs wrote: >

Re: RFR (2xS): 8181318: Allow C++ library headers on Solaris Studio

2017-06-01 Thread Erik Österlund
Hi David, On 2017-06-01 14:33, David Holmes wrote: Hi Erik, Just to be clear it is not the use of that I am concerned about, it is the -library=stlport4. It is the use of that flag that I would want to check in terms of having no affect on any existing code generation. Thank you for the c

Re: RFR (2xS): 8181318: Allow C++ library headers on Solaris Studio

2017-06-01 Thread Kim Barrett
> On Jun 1, 2017, at 8:33 AM, David Holmes wrote: > > Hi Erik, > > Just to be clear it is not the use of that I am concerned about, it > is the -library=stlport4. It is the use of that flag that I would want to > check in terms of having no affect on any existing code generation. > > I'm fin

Re: RFR 9: (doclint) 8181156 html5 doclint issues in java.base javadoc

2017-06-01 Thread Roger Riggs
Thanks, Webrev updated in place. build: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~rriggs/webrev-top-html5-8181156/ Roger On 6/1/2017 9:46 AM, Magnus Ihse Bursie wrote: On 2017-06-01 15:29, Roger Riggs wrote: Ping on the build change please Just remove the entire "--doclint-format html4" instead, --d

Re: RFR 9: (doclint) 8181156 html5 doclint issues in java.base javadoc

2017-06-01 Thread Magnus Ihse Bursie
On 2017-06-01 15:29, Roger Riggs wrote: Ping on the build change please Just remove the entire "--doclint-format html4" instead, --doclint-format html5 is default and just overridden for java.base. (Basically revert CompileJavaModules.gmk to what it was just a while ago :-)). /Magnus

Re: RFR 9: (doclint) 8181156 html5 doclint issues in java.base javadoc

2017-06-01 Thread Erik Joelsson
Build change looks good, sorry for the delay. /Erik On 2017-06-01 15:29, Roger Riggs wrote: Ping on the build change please On 5/31/2017 10:43 AM, Alan Bateman wrote: On 31/05/2017 15:34, Roger Riggs wrote: Please review javadoc markup change to update to html5 acceptable to doclint. The

Re: RFR 9: (doclint) 8181156 html5 doclint issues in java.base javadoc

2017-06-01 Thread Roger Riggs
Ping on the build change please On 5/31/2017 10:43 AM, Alan Bateman wrote: On 31/05/2017 15:34, Roger Riggs wrote: Please review javadoc markup change to update to html5 acceptable to doclint. The table formatting is updated to html5 markup. The Docs build is updated to require doclint html

RFR: JDK-8180322 Move JNI spec to specs directory

2017-06-01 Thread Magnus Ihse Bursie
The JNI spec will move to a new place in the "specs" directory in the docs image, and links to it needs to be updated. Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8180322 WebRev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~ihse/JDK-8180322-move-jni-spec/webrev.01 This is a noreg-docs fix and will be pushed t

Re: RFR (2xS): 8181318: Allow C++ library headers on Solaris Studio

2017-06-01 Thread David Holmes
Hi Erik, Just to be clear it is not the use of that I am concerned about, it is the -library=stlport4. It is the use of that flag that I would want to check in terms of having no affect on any existing code generation. I'm finding the actual build situation very confusing. It seems to me in

Re: RFR (2xS): 8181318: Allow C++ library headers on Solaris Studio

2017-06-01 Thread Erik Österlund
Hi David, On 2017-06-01 08:09, David Holmes wrote: Hi Kim, On 1/06/2017 3:51 PM, Kim Barrett wrote: On May 31, 2017, at 9:22 PM, David Holmes wrote: Hi Erik, A small change with big questions :) On 31/05/2017 11:45 PM, Erik Österlund wrote: Hi, It would be desirable to be able to use har

Re: RFR (2xS): 8181318: Allow C++ library headers on Solaris Studio

2017-06-01 Thread Kim Barrett
> On Jun 1, 2017, at 3:05 AM, Volker Simonis wrote: > > On Thu, Jun 1, 2017 at 7:51 AM, Kim Barrett wrote: >> The instigator for this is Erik and I are working on a project that >> needs information that is present in std::numeric_limits<> (provided >> by the header). Reproducing that function

Re: RFR (2xS): 8181318: Allow C++ library headers on Solaris Studio

2017-06-01 Thread Volker Simonis
On Thu, Jun 1, 2017 at 7:51 AM, Kim Barrett wrote: >> On May 31, 2017, at 9:22 PM, David Holmes wrote: >> >> Hi Erik, >> >> A small change with big questions :) >> >> On 31/05/2017 11:45 PM, Erik Österlund wrote: >>> Hi, >>> It would be desirable to be able to use harmless C++ standard library >