Re: RFR [15] 8238918 idea.sh should work with both mercurial and git repo

On 2/11/20 11:29 PM, Roger Riggs wrote: Please review a small change to the idea.sh script that generates an IntelliJ project. It detects either Mercurial or Git repos and generates the appropriate vcs.xml. Webrev:    http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~rriggs/webrev-idea-git-8238918/ Looks good!

Re: RFR [15] 8238918 idea.sh should work with both mercurial and git repo

Looks good! Thanks Maurizio On 11/02/2020 22:29, Roger Riggs wrote: Please review a small change to the idea.sh script that generates an IntelliJ project. It detects either Mercurial or Git repos and generates the appropriate vcs.xml. Webrev:    http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~rriggs/webrev-idea

Re: RFR [15] 8238918 idea.sh should work with both mercurial and git repo

Looks good. /Erik On 2020-02-11 14:29, Roger Riggs wrote: Please review a small change to the idea.sh script that generates an IntelliJ project. It detects either Mercurial or Git repos and generates the appropriate vcs.xml. Webrev:    http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~rriggs/webrev-idea-git-82389

RFR [15] 8238918 idea.sh should work with both mercurial and git repo

Please review a small change to the idea.sh script that generates an IntelliJ project. It detects either Mercurial or Git repos and generates the appropriate vcs.xml. Webrev:    http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~rriggs/webrev-idea-git-8238918/ Issue:   https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-823891

Re: RFR(XS): 8238912: Update devkit for linux-aarch64

Looks good. /Erik On 2020-02-11 12:47, Mikael Vidstedt wrote: Please review this small change which updates the devkit used when using jib to build linux-aarch64. JBS: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8238912 Webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~mikael/webrevs/8238912/webrev.00/open/w

RFR(XS): 8238912: Update devkit for linux-aarch64

Please review this small change which updates the devkit used when using jib to build linux-aarch64. JBS: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8238912 Webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~mikael/webrevs/8238912/webrev.00/open/webrev/ Cheers, Mikael

Re: RFR: JDK-8238534

On 2020-02-11 01:08, René Schünemann wrote: Hello Erik, thank you for your review. Please see my answers below. Rene On Mon, Feb 10, 2020 at 9:34 PM Erik Joelsson wrote: Hello René, That looks better. I still have some issues though. I don't understand line 273 and 305. There is no reason

Too many "no symbols" log messages during build

I just updated my local jdk repo to latest upstream and triggered a "make images" after a "make clean". All went fine, except, I saw these "no symbols" log messages while the build was in progress: ... Compiling 1003 files for jdk.hotspot.agent Note: Some input files use or override a deprecated

Re: RFR: JDK-8213185 Properly handle run-test-prebuilt -> test-prebuilt migration

Looks good. /Erik On 2020-02-11 05:08, Magnus Ihse Bursie wrote: On 2/10/20 6:07 PM, Erik Joelsson wrote: The webrev is empty. Ouch. :( I've recently reinstalled my machine, and apparently not all tooling is working as before. I'm sorry I didn't notice that. Here's a new attempt, this time

Re: RFR: JDK-8213185 Properly handle run-test-prebuilt -> test-prebuilt migration

On 2/10/20 6:07 PM, Erik Joelsson wrote: The webrev is empty. Ouch. :( I've recently reinstalled my machine, and apparently not all tooling is working as before. I'm sorry I didn't notice that. Here's a new attempt, this time I've verified that it is non-empty. :-) WebRev: http://cr.openjdk.

RFR [jdk11]: 8234525: enable link-time section-gc for linux s390x to remove unused code

Hello , please review the downport of "8234525: enable link-time section-gc for linux s390x to remove unused code" to jdk11 . My change from jdk/jdk did not apply directly and I had to adjust it slightly . Bug and jdk/jdk change : https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8234525 http

Re: RFR: JDK-8238534

Hello Erik, thank you for your review. Please see my answers below. Rene On Mon, Feb 10, 2020 at 9:34 PM Erik Joelsson wrote: > > Hello René, > > That looks better. I still have some issues though. > > I don't understand line 273 and 305. There is no reason to declare those > rules. > > Line 31