Re: RFR (xs): 8238515 - Backout JDK-8236092 from jdk/jdk

Thank you David! /Jesper > On 5 Feb 2020, at 03:37, David Holmes wrote: > > Looks good and trivial. > > Thanks, > David > > On 5/02/2020 12:36 pm, Jesper Wilhelmsson wrote: >> Hi. >> I need a review for this tiny change. >> The "ea" suffix was removed from the JDK 14 version string with

Re: RFR (xs): 8238515 - Backout JDK-8236092 from jdk/jdk

Thank you Tim! /Jesper > On 5 Feb 2020, at 03:40, Tim Bell wrote: > > Jesper: > > Looks good to me as well. > > Tim > > On 2/4/20 6:37 PM, David Holmes wrote: >> Looks good and trivial. >> Thanks, >> David >> On 5/02/2020 12:36 pm, Jesper Wilhelmsson wrote: >>> Hi. >>> >>> I need a review

Re: RFR (xs): 8238515 - Backout JDK-8236092 from jdk/jdk

Jesper: Looks good to me as well. Tim On 2/4/20 6:37 PM, David Holmes wrote: Looks good and trivial. Thanks, David On 5/02/2020 12:36 pm, Jesper Wilhelmsson wrote: Hi. I need a review for this tiny change. The "ea" suffix was removed from the JDK 14 version string with JDK-8236092. Since

RFR (xs): 8238515 - Backout JDK-8236092 from jdk/jdk

Hi. I need a review for this tiny change. The "ea" suffix was removed from the JDK 14 version string with JDK-8236092. Since that change is forwardported to jdk/jdk I need to back it out there. This is the backout diff as created by hg backout: diff --git a/make/autoconf/version-numbers

Re: RFR (xs): 8238515 - Backout JDK-8236092 from jdk/jdk

Looks good and trivial. Thanks, David On 5/02/2020 12:36 pm, Jesper Wilhelmsson wrote: Hi. I need a review for this tiny change. The "ea" suffix was removed from the JDK 14 version string with JDK-8236092. Since that change is forwardported to jdk/jdk I need to back it out there. This is the

Re: RFR: JDK-8238281 Raise minimum gcc version needed to 5.0

Looks good! In a few comments you refer to the version with just the number 5. Would it be more correct to write 5.0? (doc/building.html and doc/building.md) /Jesper > On 4 Feb 2020, at 22:48, Magnus Ihse Bursie > wrote: > > Can I have one more hotspot reviewer, please? > > /Magnus > > On

Re: RFR: JDK-8238281 Raise minimum gcc version needed to 5.0

Can I have one more hotspot reviewer, please? /Magnus On 2020-02-03 09:02, Magnus Ihse Bursie wrote: JEP 347 "Adopt C++14 Language Features in HotSpot" (JDK-8208089) will require that all compilers support the C++14 language extension. The first gcc version to fully support C++14 is 5.0. We

Re: RFR: JDK-8238225: Issues reported after replacing symlink at Contents/MacOS/libjli.dylib with binary

On 04/02/2020 17:45, Erik Joelsson wrote: Does anyone have an opinion on this? I think this looks okay, would be good if Henry could look at it too as we've been bitten by changes in this area, I think with Eclipse Tools that are locating in unusual ways (we think Info.plist). I was happy to

Re: RFR: JDK-8238225: Issues reported after replacing symlink at Contents/MacOS/libjli.dylib with binary

Does anyone have an opinion on this? /Erik On 2020-01-31 07:31, Erik Joelsson wrote: In JDK-8235687 the MacOS bundle distribution of the JDK was changed to conform to Apple requirements by changing Contents/MacOS/libjli.dylib from a symlink into ../Home/lib/libjli.dylib to a copy of that

RE: RFR: 8237192: Generate stripped/public pdbs on Windows for jdk images

> > Hi Erik, maybe we can just rename the configure option to > > --enable-stripped-pdbs-for-bundle > > AND make the default = no/false . > Then without setting the configure flag, everything stays as it is for JDK > vendors/distributors who do not want the stripped pdbs in the bundle.