Re: RFR(XS): 8186218 - Make JIB exclude webrev from all sub-repo levels when creating source bundles

On 31/08/2017 11:56 PM, Christian Tornqvist wrote: Please review this change that updates the exclude filter used by JIB when creating source bundles, it’ll now ignore webrev folders and webrev.zip in all repository levels. Won't that added capability be obsolete once we have the consolidated

Re: RFR(M): 8186978: Introduce configure argument enable-cds

Hi Goetz, I will sponsor this. Thanks, David On 1/09/2017 12:49 AM, Lindenmaier, Goetz wrote: Hi, thanks for reviewing everybody! Yes, works fine without that assignment. New webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~goetz/wr17/8186978-disableCDS/webrev.02/ Could someone please sponsor? I think au

RE: RFR(M): 8186978: Introduce configure argument enable-cds

Hi, thanks for reviewing everybody! Yes, works fine without that assignment. New webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~goetz/wr17/8186978-disableCDS/webrev.02/ Could someone please sponsor? I think autogen.sh needs to be run before submitting. Best regards, Goetz. > -Original Message- >

Re: RFR(XS): 8186218 - Make JIB exclude webrev from all sub-repo levels when creating source bundles

Looks good to me. /Erik On 2017-08-31 15:56, Christian Tornqvist wrote: Please review this change that updates the exclude filter used by JIB when creating source bundles, it’ll now ignore webrev folders and webrev.zip in all repository levels. Tested locally using JIB. Webrev: http://cr.o

Re: RFR(XS): 8186218 - Make JIB exclude webrev from all sub-repo levels when creating source bundles

On 2017-08-31 15:56, Christian Tornqvist wrote: Please review this change that updates the exclude filter used by JIB when creating source bundles, it’ll now ignore webrev folders and webrev.zip in all repository levels. Tested locally using JIB. Webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~ctornqvi/w

RFR(XS): 8186218 - Make JIB exclude webrev from all sub-repo levels when creating source bundles

Please review this change that updates the exclude filter used by JIB when creating source bundles, it’ll now ignore webrev folders and webrev.zip in all repository levels. Tested locally using JIB. Webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~ctornqvi/webrev/8186218/webrev.00/

Re: [RFR]: 8186786: Name collisions with autoconf definitions on alpha and sh

On 2017-08-25 23:52, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote: On 08/25/2017 11:28 PM, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote: Webrev can be found in [1]. Updated webrev in [1]. Removed the quotes around alpha and sh in the comments to make it more consistent with the rest of the comments. Looks good to me

Re: [RFR]: 8186786: Name collisions with autoconf definitions on alpha and sh

On 08/31/2017 03:44 PM, Magnus Ihse Bursie wrote: Looks good to me. I'll sponsor the patch for you, and regenerate the generated-configure.sh. Great. Thank you! Adrian -- .''`. John Paul Adrian Glaubitz : :' : Debian Developer - glaub...@debian.org `. `' Freie Universitaet Berlin - glau

Re: RFR(M): 8186978: Introduce configure argument enable-cds

On 2017-08-31 14:47, David Holmes wrote: Hi Goetz, On 31/08/2017 10:29 PM, Lindenmaier, Goetz wrote: Hi, Tests for class data sharing (cds) are enabled if @requires vm.cds is true. The property vm.cds depends on the preprocessor macro ENABLE_CDS. ... but you mean INCLUDE_CDS. :-) This ca

Re: RFR(M): 8186978: Introduce configure argument enable-cds

This looks ok to me, but I would value Magnus' input as well. /Erik On 2017-08-31 14:29, Lindenmaier, Goetz wrote: Hi, Tests for class data sharing (cds) are enabled if @requires vm.cds is true. The property vm.cds depends on the preprocessor macro ENABLE_CDS. This can not yet be switched by

Re: RFR(M): 8186978: Introduce configure argument enable-cds

Hi Goetz, On 31/08/2017 10:29 PM, Lindenmaier, Goetz wrote: Hi, Tests for class data sharing (cds) are enabled if @requires vm.cds is true. The property vm.cds depends on the preprocessor macro ENABLE_CDS. This can not yet be switched by configure. It's only disabled automatically for the minim

RFR(M): 8186978: Introduce configure argument enable-cds

Hi, Tests for class data sharing (cds) are enabled if @requires vm.cds is true. The property vm.cds depends on the preprocessor macro ENABLE_CDS. This can not yet be switched by configure. It's only disabled automatically for the minimal build. This change introduces enable-cds with default t

Re: [RFR]: 8187004: No valid toolchains defined for BSD

(CC:ing bsd-port-dev, where this conversation should have moved to a while ago ...) On 31.08.2017 10:53, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote: There is an active community maintaining OpenJDK on BSD. The problem is just that they are doing it downstream instead of working together with upstream due

Re: [RFR]: 8187004: No valid toolchains defined for BSD

On 08/31/2017 09:21 AM, David Holmes wrote: Those were very minor patches of two quite distinct kinds: 1. Make zero work on platform Z This is something we can easily accommodate, and it generally doesn't take much effort or disturb other platforms. Well, Zero is currently not maintained, is

Re: [RFR]: 8187004: No valid toolchains defined for BSD

On 31/08/2017 5:40 PM, Thomas Stüfe wrote: On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 9:21 AM, David Holmes > wrote: On 31/08/2017 5:08 PM, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote: On 08/31/2017 08:58 AM, Magnus Ihse Bursie wrote: BSD is buildable for jdk9 in the s

Re: CompileJavaModule.gmk overrides values from a custom extension gmk

On 2017-08-30 23:43, David Holmes wrote: On 31/08/2017 12:36 AM, Erik Joelsson wrote: Hello Jason, I took the liberty of creating an issue for this: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8186983 The mailing list server removes attachments. This makes it difficult for new people to send

Re: CompileJavaModule.gmk overrides values from a custom extension gmk

Updated webrev with the below corrected: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~erikj/8186983/webrev.02/ /Erik On 2017-08-30 16:57, Erik Joelsson wrote: Hello, On 2017-08-30 16:48, Gary Adams wrote: Is the expectation that all of the := will be changed to += for these variables? 468 jdk.internal.v

Re: [RFR]: 8187004: No valid toolchains defined for BSD

On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 9:21 AM, David Holmes wrote: > On 31/08/2017 5:08 PM, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote: > >> On 08/31/2017 08:58 AM, Magnus Ihse Bursie wrote: >> >>> BSD is buildable for jdk9 in the separate, hardly-maintained bsd-port >>> only. :-( >>> >> >> That's what I guess as well af

Re: [RFR]: 8187004: No valid toolchains defined for BSD

On 31/08/2017 5:08 PM, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote: On 08/31/2017 08:58 AM, Magnus Ihse Bursie wrote: BSD is buildable for jdk9 in the separate, hardly-maintained bsd-port only. :-( That's what I guess as well after seeing that the "bsd" directories within the "jdk" structure are missing i

Re: [RFR]: 8187004: No valid toolchains defined for BSD

On 08/31/2017 08:58 AM, Magnus Ihse Bursie wrote: > BSD is buildable for jdk9 in the separate, hardly-maintained bsd-port only. > :-( That's what I guess as well after seeing that the "bsd" directories within the "jdk" structure are missing in the mainline tree. Then I checked what NetBSD is usin

Re: [RFR]: 8187004: No valid toolchains defined for BSD

On 31/08/2017 4:41 PM, Thomas Stüfe wrote: Looking through my Mails quick, all mails at bsd-port-dev seem to refer to jdk8. Yes the port went dormant after 8. toolchain.m4 changed a bit since jdk8. Maybe noone attempted to build jdk10 yet on BSD and Adrian ran into new errors. Did some digg