Re: RFR: JDK-8211130: Change to Oracle Developer Studio 12.6 for building on Solaris at Oracle

On 2018-09-27 17:47, Erik Joelsson wrote: On 2018-09-27 05:30, Magnus Ihse Bursie wrote: On 2018-09-26 00:18, Erik Joelsson wrote: It's time for Oracle to change the official compiler used for building OpenJDK on Solaris. The new version will be Oracle Developer Studio 12.6 and the build

Re: RFR : 8211213: fix aix build after 8196341: Add JFR events for parallel phases of G1

On 09/27/2018 04:39 PM, Baesken, Matthias wrote: > Hi Thomas, do you know some fast and helpful person who can bring the > INCLUDE_JFR and ! INCLUDE_JFR cases in sync ? > (or maybe there was a reason to have these differences we observe ? ) I am not a JFR person, but I think this should do it

Re: RFR: JDK-8211130: Change to Oracle Developer Studio 12.6 for building on Solaris at Oracle

On 2018-09-27 05:30, Magnus Ihse Bursie wrote: On 2018-09-26 00:18, Erik Joelsson wrote: It's time for Oracle to change the official compiler used for building OpenJDK on Solaris. The new version will be Oracle Developer Studio 12.6 and the build will happen on Solaris 11.3. This patch

Re: [aarch64-port-dev ] RFR(XS): 8211207: AArch64: Fix build failure after JDK-8211029

Andrew, My $0.2 It might be better to refactor switch(tag) in c1_LIRGenerator_aarch64.cpp to usual case/break form, rather than have multiple returns. i.e. switch (tag) { 583 case floatTag: // fall trough 584 case doubleTag: do_ArithmeticOp_FPU(x); break; 585

RE: RFR: 8210647: libsaproc is being compiled without optimization.

Hi Severin, Looks good to me. Thanks, Sharath (not a Reviewer) -Original Message- From: Severin Gehwolf [mailto:sgehw...@redhat.com] Sent: Friday, September 14, 2018 7:04 PM To: build-dev; serviceability-dev Subject: RFR: 8210647: libsaproc is being compiled without optimization.

Re: RFR: JDK-8211073 Remove -Wno-extra from Hotspot

> On Sep 24, 2018, at 4:31 PM, Magnus Ihse Bursie > wrote: > > The -Wextra option to gcc enables a bunch of useful warnings.[1] Some of > them, but not all, can be individually enabled or disabled. All other > libraries in OpenJDK are compiled with -Wextra, but not Hotspot. Enabling >

RE: RFR : 8211213: fix aix build after 8196341: Add JFR events for parallel phases of G1

Hi Thomas, do you know some fast and helpful person who can bring the INCLUDE_JFR and ! INCLUDE_JFR cases in sync ? (or maybe there was a reason to have these differences we observe ? ) Best regards, Matthias > -Original Message- > From: Thomas Schatzl > Sent: Donnerstag, 27.

Re: RFR : 8211213: fix aix build after 8196341: Add JFR events for parallel phases of G1

Hi, On Thu, 2018-09-27 at 14:16 +, Baesken, Matthias wrote: > Small update - while my change fixes the build issues on > AIX (and maybe also the issues on zero) , > My comment that the AIX compiler xlc12 is guilty was most likely > wrong . > > What happens, is that INCLUDE_JFR is

Re: RFR: JDK-8211073 Remove -Wno-extra from Hotspot

Hi Magnus, On 27/09/2018 8:47 AM, Magnus Ihse Bursie wrote: Anyone from Hotspot who can review the code changes? I had looked at this but it is unclear whether the casts are the right fix or whether we have a poor type selection in the first place. For example, ./share/opto/node.hpp:

Re: RFR(S): 8211145: [ppc] [s390]: Build fails due to -Werror=switch (introduced with JDK-8211029)

Hi Aleksey, re break vs. ShouldNotReachHere(), I tried to change semantics as little as possible. After discussion with colleagues, we concluded that ShouldNotReachHere() is the better choice. Code was modified accordingly. Your concerns re. coding style are reflected in the new webrev as

RE: RFR : 8211213: fix aix build after 8196341: Add JFR events for parallel phases of G1

Small update - while my change fixes the build issues on AIX (and maybe also the issues on zero) , My comment that the AIX compiler xlc12 is guilty was most likely wrong . What happens, is that INCLUDE_JFR is not set on AIX (means : jfr is disabled on this platform). However , in

Re: RFR: JDK-8211073 Remove -Wno-extra from Hotspot

Anyone from Hotspot who can review the code changes? /Magnus On 2018-09-24 22:31, Magnus Ihse Bursie wrote: The -Wextra option to gcc enables a bunch of useful warnings.[1] Some of them, but not all, can be individually enabled or disabled. All other libraries in OpenJDK are compiled with

Re: build issues after 8211029 on gcc4.8 and our porting Linux platforms (ppc64(le)/ s390x)

On 2018-09-25 16:33, Baesken, Matthias wrote: Hello, it looks like 8211029: Have a common set of enabled warnings for all native libraries breaks a lot of our Linux based builds. Our gcc 4.8 misses some of the introduced command line options : cc1plus: error: unrecognized command line

Re: RFR: JDK-8211130: Change to Oracle Developer Studio 12.6 for building on Solaris at Oracle

On 2018-09-26 00:18, Erik Joelsson wrote: It's time for Oracle to change the official compiler used for building OpenJDK on Solaris. The new version will be Oracle Developer Studio 12.6 and the build will happen on Solaris 11.3. This patch changes the jib dependency to use the new devkit and

RFR : 8211213: fix aix build after 8196341: Add JFR events for parallel phases of G1

Hello , please review this small change that fixes our AIX build after “8196341: Add JFR events for parallel phases of G1”was pushed . After 8196341 , compile errors occurred, example : /openjdk/nb/rs6000_64/nightly/jdk/src/hotspot/share/gc/g1/g1CollectedHeap.cpp", line 3185.15:

Re: RFR(S): 8211145: [ppc] [s390]: Build fails due to -Werror=switch (introduced with JDK-8211029)

On 09/27/2018 12:08 PM, Schmidt, Lutz wrote: > Hi Aleksey & All, > > I have changed the "sneaky" code such that it now looks more "enterprise > grade". Please find an updated webrev at > Webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~lucy/webrevs/8211145.01/ Looks much better, thanks. Should the

Re: RFR(S): 8211145: [ppc] [s390]: Build fails due to -Werror=switch (introduced with JDK-8211029)

Hi Aleksey & All, I have changed the "sneaky" code such that it now looks more "enterprise grade". Please find an updated webrev at Webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~lucy/webrevs/8211145.01/ Bug:https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8211145 Thanks, Lutz On 26.09.18, 18:21,

Re: [aarch64-port-dev ] RFR(XS): 8211207: AArch64: Fix build failure after JDK-8211029

On 27/09/18 09:53, Andrew Haley wrote: > http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~aph/8211207/ > > follows the pattern of the x86 port. Yes, looks good. regards, Andrew Dinn --- Senior Principal Software Engineer Red Hat UK Ltd Registered in England and Wales under Company Registration No. 03798903

Re: [aarch64-port-dev ] RFR(XS): 8211207: AArch64: Fix build failure after JDK-8211029

On 09/27/2018 10:53 AM, Andrew Haley wrote: > On 09/27/2018 09:30 AM, Aleksey Shipilev wrote: >> I was mostly concerned with having the same control flow as before, >> did I miss some change that is actually non-trivial? > > That's not my point: we should not put break statements in places we >

Re: [aarch64-port-dev ] RFR(XS): 8211207: AArch64: Fix build failure after JDK-8211029

On 09/27/2018 09:30 AM, Aleksey Shipilev wrote: > On 09/27/2018 10:21 AM, Andrew Haley wrote: >> On 09/27/2018 08:22 AM, Aleksey Shipilev wrote: >>> Otherwise looks good and trivial. >> >> No, it is neither good nor trivial:some of those should be >> ShouldNotReachHere(). >> I'll post a webrev

RE: [aarch64-port-dev ] RFR(XS): 8211207: AArch64: Fix build failure after JDK-8211029

I'm happy to hear Andrew Haley will post a better fix. You can discard my change. -- Thanks, Pengfei > -Original Message- > > On 09/27/2018 10:21 AM, Andrew Haley wrote: > > On 09/27/2018 08:22 AM, Aleksey Shipilev wrote: > >> Otherwise looks good and trivial. > > > > No, it is

Re: [aarch64-port-dev ] RFR(XS): 8211207: AArch64: Fix build failure after JDK-8211029

On 09/27/2018 10:21 AM, Andrew Haley wrote: > On 09/27/2018 08:22 AM, Aleksey Shipilev wrote: >> Otherwise looks good and trivial. > > No, it is neither good nor trivial:some of those should be > ShouldNotReachHere(). > I'll post a webrev later. Okay, let's see it. I was mostly concerned with

Re: [aarch64-port-dev ] RFR(XS): 8211207: AArch64: Fix build failure after JDK-8211029

On 09/27/2018 08:22 AM, Aleksey Shipilev wrote: > Otherwise looks good and trivial. No, it is neither good nor trivial:some of those should be ShouldNotReachHere(). I'll post a webrev later. -- Andrew Haley Java Platform Lead Engineer Red Hat UK Ltd. EAC8 43EB D3EF DB98

RE: RFR(XS): 8211207: AArch64: Fix build failure after JDK-8211029

Hi Aleksey, Thanks for your review. Please see new patch at http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~njian/8211207/webrev.01/ I've added line breaks after "default:" and restored a missing break in switch-case. Could you help push this new patch if no other issues? -- Thanks, Pengfei > -Original

RE: RFR(XS): 8211097: aix: fix build after JDK-8210919

Thanks for the reviews. Pushed. Best regards, Martin -Original Message- From: Erik Joelsson Sent: Mittwoch, 26. September 2018 20:02 To: Doerr, Martin ; 'build-dev@openjdk.java.net' Subject: Re: RFR(XS): 8211097: aix: fix build after JDK-8210919 Looks good. /Erik On 2018-09-26

Re: RFR(XS): 8211207: AArch64: Fix build failure after JDK-8211029

On 09/27/2018 09:10 AM, Pengfei Li (Arm Technology China) wrote: > Please help review this patch that fixed these warnings in AArch64 backend. > webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~njian/8211207/webrev.00/ Please break the line after "default:" to match the style in c1_LIRGenerator_aarch64.cpp

RFR(XS): 8211207: AArch64: Fix build failure after JDK-8211029

Hi, The commit "8211029: Have a common set of enabled warnings for all native libraries" breaks AArch64 build. We have several code warnings in AArch64 C1 and template table. And options "-Werror=c++11-compat" and "-Werror=switch" are turned on by this commit. Error log can be found at JBS:

Re: RFR: JDK-8211071: unpack.cpp fails to compile with statement has no effect [-Werror=unused-value]

Hi Christoph & Magnus, thanks for reviewing! Am 27.09.18 um 08:22 schrieb Langer, Christoph: > Hi Roman, > > this looks good to me. +1 > > Best regards > Christoph > >> -Original Message- >> From: build-dev On Behalf Of >> Roman Kennke >> Sent: Mittwoch, 26. September 2018 19:24 >>

RE: RFR: JDK-8211071: unpack.cpp fails to compile with statement has no effect [-Werror=unused-value]

Hi Roman, this looks good to me. +1 Best regards Christoph > -Original Message- > From: build-dev On Behalf Of > Roman Kennke > Sent: Mittwoch, 26. September 2018 19:24 > To: Magnus Ihse Bursie ; core-libs- > d...@openjdk.java.net > Cc: build-dev@openjdk.java.net > Subject: Re: RFR: