On Wed, 2 Mar 2022 08:11:51 GMT, TheShermanTanker wrote:
> Currently the only other option for manually configuring the build platform
> while cross compiling are devkits, which don't work on certain systems and
> are also more focused on differentiating the build and ta
On Wed, 2 Mar 2022 08:27:19 GMT, Thomas Stuefe wrote:
> > This also removes support for the legacy cross compilation flags as well.
>
> Hi,
>
> without reading through building.md and your patch, which legacy flags are
> would be removed by this?
>
> Thanks, Thomas
Specifically the flags tha
Currently the only other option for manually configuring the build platform
while cross compiling are devkits, which don't work on certain systems and are
also more focused on differentiating the build and target compilers instead.
This patch adds the ability to explicitly set the build platform
On Thu, 3 Feb 2022 12:56:12 GMT, Magnus Ihse Bursie wrote:
>> Current adhoc version build strings are not ideal. Some of the problems:
>> * A build number of "0" is inserted, which make the version string look
>> like it's an official build, at least when not reading carefully
>> * The version
On Fri, 4 Feb 2022 10:05:09 GMT, Aleksey Shipilev wrote:
> > If that's the case, I'm wondering if instead of changing
> > `18-internal+0-adhoc.shade.jdk (18-internal)` to something like
> > `18-internal-jdk-18+17-80-gcdf89304eaf.shade (18-internal)`, `build
> > 18<+build number, not required>-
On Thu, 3 Feb 2022 12:56:12 GMT, Magnus Ihse Bursie wrote:
>> Current adhoc version build strings are not ideal. Some of the problems:
>> * A build number of "0" is inserted, which make the version string look
>> like it's an official build, at least when not reading carefully
>> * The version
On Thu, 27 Jan 2022 08:49:08 GMT, TheShermanTanker
wrote:
> Ever since [JDK-8257679](https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8257679)
> was merged in 16, MSYS2 became capable of building a functional JDK on
> Windows. This PR updates some outdated documentation in building
On Fri, 28 Jan 2022 09:12:06 GMT, Magnus Ihse Bursie wrote:
>> TheShermanTanker has updated the pull request with a new target base due to
>> a merge or a rebase. The incremental webrev excludes the unrelated changes
>> brought in by the merge/rebase. The pull request conta
eciate any reviews, and would like to know how I might be able to
> improve the wording of both updated docs, if possible.
TheShermanTanker has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional
commit since the last revision:
Update htmlm using pandoc.
-
Ch
On Thu, 27 Jan 2022 08:49:08 GMT, TheShermanTanker
wrote:
> Ever since [JDK-8257679](https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8257679)
> was merged in 16, MSys 2 became capable of building a functional JDK on
> Windows. This PR updates some outdated documentation in building
eciate any reviews, and would like to know how I might be able to
> improve the wording of both updated docs, if possible.
TheShermanTanker has updated the pull request with a new target base due to a
merge or a rebase. The incremental webrev excludes the unrelated changes
brought in by the m
regenerate the file.
>
> It looks like you are trying to reuse an existing and already resolved BugID
> for this change. That is not possible. A new bug must be filed for each
> change in OpenJDK.
@erikj79
I don't have access to pandoc, would be appreciated if you could help me o
Ever since [JDK-8257679](https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8257679) was
merged in 16, MSys 2 became capable of building a functional JDK on Windows.
This PR updates some outdated documentation in building.html and building.md to
reflect that change.
I appreciate any reviews, and would li
13 matches
Mail list logo
