Re: Fix for 6888888 breaks the build

2009-10-26 Thread Jonathan Gibbons
Andrew John Hughes wrote: 2009/10/26 Jonathan Gibbons : Andrew John Hughes wrote: 2009/10/26 Andrew John Hughes : 2009/10/16 Kelly O'Hair : Tim Bell wrote: Andrew John Hughes wrote: (snip!) I think there's still an issue here that makes this patch worth pushing. The 688 fix d

Re: Fix for 6888888 breaks the build

2009-10-26 Thread Andrew John Hughes
2009/10/26 Jonathan Gibbons : > Andrew John Hughes wrote: > > 2009/10/26 Andrew John Hughes : > > > 2009/10/16 Kelly O'Hair : > > > Tim Bell wrote: > > > Andrew John Hughes wrote: > > > (snip!) > > > I think there's still an issue here that makes this patch worth > pushing.   The 688 fix didn't

Re: Fix for 6888888 breaks the build

2009-10-26 Thread Jonathan Gibbons
Andrew John Hughes wrote: 2009/10/26 Andrew John Hughes : 2009/10/16 Kelly O'Hair : Tim Bell wrote: Andrew John Hughes wrote: (snip!) I think there's still an issue here that makes this patch worth pushing. The 688 fix didn't cause the bug, but merely

Re: Fix for 6888888 breaks the build

2009-10-26 Thread Andrew John Hughes
2009/10/26 Andrew John Hughes : > 2009/10/16 Kelly O'Hair : >> >> Tim Bell wrote: Andrew John Hughes wrote: >>> >>> (snip!) > > I think there's still an issue here that makes this patch worth > pushing.   The 688 fix didn't cause the bug, but merely made it > visible t

Re: Fix for 6888888 breaks the build

2009-10-26 Thread Andrew John Hughes
2009/10/16 Kelly O'Hair : > > Tim Bell wrote: >>> >>> Andrew John Hughes wrote: >> >> (snip!) I think there's still an issue here that makes this patch worth pushing.   The 688 fix didn't cause the bug, but merely made it visible to a lot more people.  So 6889255 will only h

Re: Fix for 6888888 breaks the build

2009-10-16 Thread Kelly O'Hair
Tim Bell wrote: Andrew John Hughes wrote: (snip!) I think there's still an issue here that makes this patch worth pushing. The 688 fix didn't cause the bug, but merely made it visible to a lot more people. So 6889255 will only hide it again. The build uses JAVA_TOOLS_DIR for javac, java

Re: Fix for 6888888 breaks the build

2009-10-15 Thread Tim Bell
> Andrew John Hughes wrote: (snip!) >> I think there's still an issue here that makes this patch worth >> pushing. The 688 fix didn't cause the bug, but merely made it >> visible to a lot more people. So 6889255 will only hide it again. >> The build uses JAVA_TOOLS_DIR for javac, javah and j

Re: Fix for 6888888 breaks the build

2009-10-15 Thread Jonathan Gibbons
Andrew John Hughes wrote: 2009/10/15 Tim Bell : Andrew John Hughes wrote: The fix for bug 688: http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk7/build/jdk/rev/14bd992a breaks the build as it tries to use javah from ALT_JDK_IMPORT_DIR (via JAVA_TOOLS_DIR) which is not set on normal builds. The R

Re: Fix for 6888888 breaks the build

2009-10-15 Thread Andrew John Hughes
2009/10/15 Tim Bell : > Andrew John Hughes wrote: >> The fix for bug 688: >> >> http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk7/build/jdk/rev/14bd992a >> >> breaks the build as it tries to use javah from ALT_JDK_IMPORT_DIR (via >> JAVA_TOOLS_DIR) which is not set on normal builds. >> The README tells the u

Re: Fix for 6888888 breaks the build

2009-10-15 Thread Tim Bell
Andrew John Hughes wrote: > The fix for bug 688: > > http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk7/build/jdk/rev/14bd992a > > breaks the build as it tries to use javah from ALT_JDK_IMPORT_DIR (via > JAVA_TOOLS_DIR) which is not set on normal builds. > The README tells the user to set ALT_BOOTDIR and ch

Fix for 6888888 breaks the build

2009-10-15 Thread Andrew John Hughes
The fix for bug 688: http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk7/build/jdk/rev/14bd992a breaks the build as it tries to use javah from ALT_JDK_IMPORT_DIR (via JAVA_TOOLS_DIR) which is not set on normal builds. The README tells the user to set ALT_BOOTDIR and changing JAVA_TOOLS_DIR to be set to BOOTD