In that case, the review looks good.
Thanks-
Tim
On 04/13/18 13:15, Kevin Walls wrote:
Hi Erik - thanks for clarifying.
On 13/04/2018 20:58, Erik Joelsson wrote:
ccache shouldn't be commented out. That must have been a local edit
mistake in the original webrev.
/Erik
On 2018-04-13 12:51,
Hi Erik - thanks for clarifying.
On 13/04/2018 20:58, Erik Joelsson wrote:
ccache shouldn't be commented out. That must have been a local edit
mistake in the original webrev.
/Erik
On 2018-04-13 12:51, Kevin Walls wrote:
Thanks Tim -
There's a later webrev in the review thread:
http://cr
On 04/13/2018 12:44 PM, Volker Simonis wrote:
Phil Race mailto:philip.r...@oracle.com>>
schrieb am Fr. 13. Apr. 2018 um 19:21:
I suppose this potentially helps the concurrency of the build ?
I can't think of why this would be a problem now there is no
compile-time linking
i
ccache shouldn't be commented out. That must have been a local edit
mistake in the original webrev.
/Erik
On 2018-04-13 12:51, Kevin Walls wrote:
Thanks Tim -
There's a later webrev in the review thread:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~erikj/8038340/webrev.root.03/ in which I
see the common/au
On 2018-04-13 12:44, Volker Simonis wrote:
Phil Race mailto:philip.r...@oracle.com>>
schrieb am Fr. 13. Apr. 2018 um 19:21:
I suppose this potentially helps the concurrency of the build ?
I can't think of why this would be a problem now there is no
compile-time linking
invol
Thanks Tim -
There's a later webrev in the review thread:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~erikj/8038340/webrev.root.03/ in which I see
the common/autoconf/configure.ac change... It's in the commit in 9
also. I think we need it. 8-)
But that webrev.03 also has the commenting out of "Building cca
Phil Race schrieb am Fr. 13. Apr. 2018 um 19:21:
>
> I suppose this potentially helps the concurrency of the build ?
> I can't think of why this would be a problem now there is no
> compile-time linking
> involved and it seems Linux was already fine without this,
> but a jdk-submit would be prude
Kevin - looks good in general with a few remarks (see below):
I'd like to request review of this backport from 9 to 8u:
8038340: Cleanup and fix sysroot and devkit handling on Linux and Solaris
JBS: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8038340
9 changesets:
base repo: http://hg.openjdk.jav
Looks good.
/Erik
On 2018-04-13 09:22, Kevin Walls wrote:
Hi,
I'd like to request review of this backport from 9 to 8u:
8038340: Cleanup and fix sysroot and devkit handling on Linux and Solaris
JBS: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8038340
9 changesets:
base repo: http://hg.openjdk.
Yes, we don't want unneeded dependencies declared as it both potentially
slows down the build (though this removal will not have any measurable
impact) as well as confuses humans trying to make sense of the makefiles.
This removal should be fine as we don't link to libawt_xawt on any
platform
Looks good, thanks!
/Erik
On 2018-04-13 09:22, Volker Simonis wrote:
Hi Erik,
thanks for looking at the patch and good catch! You're right that the
dependency can now be removed. Here's the new webrev:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~simonis/webrevs/2018/8201524.v1
Regards,
Volker
On Fri, Apr
I suppose this potentially helps the concurrency of the build ?
I can't think of why this would be a problem now there is no
compile-time linking
involved and it seems Linux was already fine without this,
but a jdk-submit would be prudent ..
-phil.
On 04/13/2018 09:22 AM, Volker Simonis wrote
Hi Erik,
thanks for looking at the patch and good catch! You're right that the
dependency can now be removed. Here's the new webrev:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~simonis/webrevs/2018/8201524.v1
Regards,
Volker
On Fri, Apr 13, 2018 at 6:00 PM, Erik Joelsson wrote:
> Hello Volker,
>
> The change
Hi,
I'd like to request review of this backport from 9 to 8u:
8038340: Cleanup and fix sysroot and devkit handling on Linux and Solaris
JBS: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8038340
9 changesets:
base repo: http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk9/dev/rev/9786ef8ca58c
JDK: repo: http://hg.openjd
Hello Volker,
The change looks good, but now that we no longer link against
libawt_headless, we should also remove the make dependency a few lines
down. (Should have been done already for Solaris.)
/Erik
On 2018-04-13 06:28, Volker Simonis wrote:
Hi,
can I please have a review for this ti
Build changes look good.
/Erik
On 2018-04-12 17:34, Naoto Sato wrote:
Hi,
Please review the fix to the subject issue. While fixing 8189784 [1],
I noticed that not only CLDR zones but also tzdb link entries are also
hard coded. So I further modified j.t.f.ZoneName to generate tzdb
entries a
Hi All,
It looks like the addition of support for disabling features has broken support
for enabling features that contain a ‘-‘ in their name (amusingly this includes
the 'all-gcs’ feature).
Pretty sure this is the offending code is the use of 'match($i, /-.*/)’ to
distinguish between disable
Hi Volker,
looks good.
Best regards
Christoph
> -Original Message-
> From: awt-dev [mailto:awt-dev-boun...@openjdk.java.net] On Behalf Of
> Volker Simonis
> Sent: Freitag, 13. April 2018 15:29
> To: awt-dev ; build-dev d...@openjdk.java.net>
> Subject: RFR(XS): 8201524: [AIX] Don't lin
Hi,
We (Red Hat) have been building Zero on s390 for a while now. In order
to do so we needed to have this patch to reduce the maximum heap size
setting for big workloads. Otherwise we see this during (JDK 9) builds:
++ /usr/bin/tee
/builddir/build/BUILD/java-9-openjdk-9.0.4.12-5.openjdk9.el7.s3
On 13/04/2018 5:40 PM, Magnus Ihse Bursie wrote:
On 2018-04-12 23:30, David Holmes wrote:
On 12/04/2018 11:33 PM, Magnus Ihse Bursie wrote:
On 2018-04-12 14:15, David Holmes wrote:
Hi Magnus,
On 12/04/2018 9:39 PM, Magnus Ihse Bursie wrote:
It is currently easy to add new JVM features to th
Hi Severin!
On 04/13/2018 02:16 PM, Severin Gehwolf wrote:
Is there a bug for this already?
Here is one:
https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8201536
Great, thank you. I couldn't reply earlier as I was just on my way.
Adrian
--
.''`. John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
: :' : Debian Developer
On 13/04/2018 5:25 PM, Volker Simonis wrote:
On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 11:30 PM, David Holmes wrote:
On 12/04/2018 11:33 PM, Magnus Ihse Bursie wrote:
On 2018-04-12 14:15, David Holmes wrote:
Hi Magnus,
On 12/04/2018 9:39 PM, Magnus Ihse Bursie wrote:
It is currently easy to add new JVM
Hi,
can I please have a review for this tiny AIX cleanup:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~simonis/webrevs/2018/8201524/
https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8201524
This is a follow up change of JDK-8196516 which discovered that on AIX
libfontmanager is always linked against libawt_headless at b
On Fri, 2018-04-13 at 13:17 +0200, Severin Gehwolf wrote:
> On Thu, 2018-04-12 at 18:56 +0200, Magnus Ihse Bursie wrote:
> > > 12 apr. 2018 kl. 15:49 skrev John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
> > > :
> > >
> > > Hi!
> > >
> > > I have been playing around with Zero on new (old) architectures and one
> > >
On Thu, 2018-04-12 at 18:56 +0200, Magnus Ihse Bursie wrote:
> > 12 apr. 2018 kl. 15:49 skrev John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
> > :
> >
> > Hi!
> >
> > I have been playing around with Zero on new (old) architectures and one
> > of them is hppa, which needs some additional work due to its stack growing
One small followup question - the test SourceLauncherTest is not
covering any shebang cases - is that deliberate? I see that those seem
to be covered in the launcher test too, but I wonder if we should have
tests for clearly broken stuff, such as
'#'
'#!'
'#!\n'
Another small question - I s
The javac part looks OK to me.
A nit comment, in:
launcher/Main.java/MemoryFileManager#createInMemoryClassFile, there is:
return new FilterOutputStream(new ByteArrayOutputStream()) { ...
It could I think be written as:
return new ByteArrayOutputStream() {
@Override
public void close() th
On 2018-04-12 23:30, David Holmes wrote:
On 12/04/2018 11:33 PM, Magnus Ihse Bursie wrote:
On 2018-04-12 14:15, David Holmes wrote:
Hi Magnus,
On 12/04/2018 9:39 PM, Magnus Ihse Bursie wrote:
It is currently easy to add new JVM features to the JVM build, but
it is not possible to remove featu
Hi Volker,
On Fri, 2018-04-13 at 09:03 +0200, Volker Simonis wrote:
> Hi Severin,
>
> I'm currently looking at the AIX-side of this bug.
>
> The problem I see with your solution is that it uses LDFLAGS (which is
> generic) to filter out Linux specific linker flags. If we would extend
> this to A
On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 11:30 PM, David Holmes wrote:
> On 12/04/2018 11:33 PM, Magnus Ihse Bursie wrote:
>>
>> On 2018-04-12 14:15, David Holmes wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Magnus,
>>>
>>> On 12/04/2018 9:39 PM, Magnus Ihse Bursie wrote:
It is currently easy to add new JVM features to the JVM bui
Hi Severin,
I'm currently looking at the AIX-side of this bug.
The problem I see with your solution is that it uses LDFLAGS (which is
generic) to filter out Linux specific linker flags. If we would extend
this to AIX, we would have to add yet another substitution for AIX
which filters out "-Wl,be
31 matches
Mail list logo
