Re: Fwd: Re: How to decrease size of j2sdk_image

Tim, Thanks, I haven't visited that page in a while and the info there is certainly helpful. Section 10 is also useful. I notice that some of the info is out of date (like refs to VERBOSE in FAQ, and "SKIP_BOOT_CYCLE not supported in new build" in Cheat Sheet.) I guess with the recent messa

Re: Fwd: Re: How to decrease size of j2sdk_image

Hi Jon: Is there, should there be a FAQ for the new build, along the lines of a series of "How do I ..." questions? -- Jon Have you been through "README for the New Build System"? http://openjdk.java.net/projects/build-infra/guide.html Section 9 of that doc is a FAQ. We can certainly up

Re: Fwd: Re: How to decrease size of j2sdk_image

On 10/12/2012 04:16 AM, Seán Coffey wrote: > thanks for the detailed reply. It makes sense to exercise such code > where possible. > > However, I'd also argue that Oracle JDK != OpenJDK. > > why would openJDK developers get to build FDS by default? - it slows the > build and makes bundles bigge

Re: Fwd: Re: How to decrease size of j2sdk_image

Is there, should there be a FAQ for the new build, along the lines of a series of "How do I ..." questions? -- Jon

Re: Fwd: Re: How to decrease size of j2sdk_image

David is right. It is amazing how many times I read right past the fact that the wrong make variable was being used. The right make invocation is: make FULL_DEBUG_SYMBOLS=0 The ENABLE_FULL_DEBUG_SYMBOLS make variable is what is used in the various makefiles to implement the logic checks for

Re: Fwd: Re: How to decrease size of j2sdk_image

Dan, thanks for the detailed reply. It makes sense to exercise such code where possible. However, I'd also argue that Oracle JDK != OpenJDK. why would openJDK developers get to build FDS by default? - it slows the build and makes bundles bigger. I would imagine most developers don't need th

Re: Fwd: Re: How to decrease size of j2sdk_image

On 10/11/12 9:09 AM, matchew wrote: Understand. But why still when ENABLE_FULL_DEBUG_SYMBOLS is set to 0 these files are generated? Because you have to set FULL_DEBUG_SYMBOLS=0 when invoking make, not ENABLE_FULL_DEBUG_SYMBOLS=0. From the makefiles: # The Full Debug Symbols (FDS) default for

Re: Fwd: Re: How to decrease size of j2sdk_image

How are you invoking your build? Dan On 10/11/12 9:19 AM, matchew wrote: i believe i am doing full build - including jdk, hotspot, etc. So how can i switch off debug symbols in jdk builds? 2012/10/11 Daniel D. Daugherty > On 10/11/12 9:09 AM, matchew

Re: Fwd: Re: How to decrease size of j2sdk_image

On 10/11/12 8:50 AM, matchew wrote: what about openjdk builds used for example by ubuntu package manager (default repos)? these builds do not have these debug files (*.diz) at all. I don't know how Ubuntu builds the OpenJDK repos so I can't really comment on why those builds don't have debug i

Re: Fwd: Re: How to decrease size of j2sdk_image

On 10/11/12 9:09 AM, matchew wrote: Understand. But why still when ENABLE_FULL_DEBUG_SYMBOLS is set to 0 these files are generated? What type of build are you doing? The ENABLE_FULL_DEBUG_SYMBOLS flag only disables the feature for "product bits" builds. For a JDK build that is an "OPT" build. F

Re: Fwd: Re: How to decrease size of j2sdk_image

On 10/11/12 3:21 AM, Seán Coffey wrote: Moving this off discuss mailing list to build-dev. Why is ENABLE_FULL_DEBUG_SYMBOLS being set to 1 for many product builds now ? It slows down the build and creates increased bundle size even though the majority of users do not require this functionality

Fwd: Re: How to decrease size of j2sdk_image

Moving this off discuss mailing list to build-dev. Why is ENABLE_FULL_DEBUG_SYMBOLS being set to 1 for many product builds now ? It slows down the build and creates increased bundle size even though the majority of users do not require this functionality. Could we consider flipping the defaul