On 30/04/11 00:05, Kelly O'Hair wrote:
On Apr 29, 2011, at 1:31 PM, Steve Poole wrote:
On 26/04/11 15:54, Kelly O'Hair wrote:
On Apr 26, 2011, at 12:59 AM, Steve Poole wrote:
* Allow for use of more portable build tools (compilers etc.) where possible
Can I add support for alternat
Hi Steve,
The initial proposal was aimed to address issues in the existing build process
that we felt could be improved in the short term. The idea was to share some
ideas and experiments we have done and invite discussion on these approaches.
Starting the project will give us a set of repos to
Timeframes... Humm...
Initially I would like to start with a set of jdk7 repositories, go as far as
we can with that, hopefully
show some major improvements in overall build time, then set it aside for
potential inclusion into jdk7u2
(that would require lots of verifications that the end resu
On May 3, 2011, at 2:18 AM, Steve Poole wrote:
> On 30/04/11 00:05, Kelly O'Hair wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Apr 29, 2011, at 1:31 PM, Steve Poole wrote:
>>
>>> On 26/04/11 15:54, Kelly O'Hair wrote:
On Apr 26, 2011, at 12:59 AM, Steve Poole wrote:
>>>
>>> * Allow for
David Holmes (david.hol...@oracle.com) wrote:
> Hi John,
>
> Fresh webrev at:
>
> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~dholmes/7036525/webrev.1/
Looks good to me.
-John
> David Holmes said the following on 04/30/11 10:09:
> > Thanks John. Currently sitting here shaking my head is disbelief. I'll
> > t
David Holmes (david.hol...@oracle.com) wrote:
> Hi Keith,
>
> Keith McGuigan said the following on 05/03/11 02:13:
> > On Apr 29, 2011, at 1:47 PM, John Coomes wrote:
> >
> >> David Holmes (david.hol...@oracle.com) wrote:
> >>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~dholmes/7036525/webrev/
> >>>
> >>> Simpl
On Apr 28, 2011, at 2:48 AM, Fredrik Öhrström wrote:
> 2011/3/11 Kelly O'Hair
> in the repository. If there are frequent pushes going on, either from too
> much activity or too many developers,
> someone may experience a:
> hg push# fails because you need to do a pull "too many heads mess
On May 3, 2011, at 12:05 PM, Kelly O'Hair wrote:
I was going to say that building hotspot does NOT require a Boot JDK
to build, but I would be wrong, it does,
but I agree, it probably should not. As I recall, there is some XML
processing, the stupid gamma launcher Queens use,
Whoops... lit
On May 3, 2011, at 10:16 AM, Keith McGuigan wrote:
>
> On May 3, 2011, at 12:05 PM, Kelly O'Hair wrote:
>
>> I was going to say that building hotspot does NOT require a Boot JDK to
>> build, but I would be wrong, it does,
>> but I agree, it probably should not. As I recall, there is some XML
Changeset: 1c31b35e9408
Author:ogino
Date: 2011-04-26 21:46 -0700
URL: http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk7/build/jdk/rev/1c31b35e9408
7036955: Japanese man pages in linux should be in utf-8 encoding
Reviewed-by: ohair, mfang
! make/common/Defs-linux.gmk
! make/common/Release.gmk
Chang
On May 3, 2011, at 11:27 AM, Kelly O'Hair wrote:
> On May 3, 2011, at 10:16 AM, Keith McGuigan wrote:
>
>> On May 3, 2011, at 12:05 PM, Kelly O'Hair wrote:
>>
>>> I was going to say that building hotspot does NOT require a Boot JDK to
>>> build, but I would be wrong, it does,
>>> but I agree, i
>> No doubt it's been useful, but seriously, you just built a hotspot for jdk7,
>> with a completely
different
>> C++ compiler, and a different C++ runtime dependency, and you plop it down
>> into a jdk6 image (that
>> was built with a different C++ compiler, and maybe using a different C++
>> r
On May 3, 2011, at 4:26 PM, Fredrik Öhrström wrote:
No doubt it's been useful, but seriously, you just built a hotspot
for jdk7, with a completely
different
C++ compiler, and a different C++ runtime dependency, and you plop
it down into a jdk6 image (that
was built with a different C++ comp
On 2011-05-03 22:27, Kelly O'Hair wrote:
No doubt it's been useful, but seriously, you just built a hotspot for jdk7,
with a completely different
C++ compiler, and a different C++ runtime dependency, and you plop it down into
a jdk6 image (that
was built with a different C++ compiler, and maybe
On 05/03/2011 04:13 PM, Mike Swingler wrote:
On May 3, 2011, at 11:27 AM, Kelly O'Hair wrote:
On May 3, 2011, at 10:16 AM, Keith McGuigan wrote:
The number of issues with that gamma/Queens makefile logic is too
high, and it's not something we ship anyway. In my opinion, we
should be restrictin
On May 3, 2011, at 2:08 PM, Dmitry Samersoff wrote:
> Generally I agree that gamma launcher should be in hotspot test but minimal
> "smoke" test at the end of the build is quite useful. The build system not
> always handle correctly incremental build and Queens test usually catch it at
> the e
On May 3, 2011, at 3:31 PM, Kelly O'Hair wrote:
> On May 3, 2011, at 2:08 PM, Dmitry Samersoff wrote:
>
>> Generally I agree that gamma launcher should be in hotspot test but minimal
>> "smoke" test at the end of the build is quite useful. The build system not
>> always handle correctly increme
On May 3, 2011, at 3:40 PM, Mike Swingler wrote:
>>
>> I'd like to make that a general rule:
>>
>> #1 Do not run tests as part of the build process
>>
>> :^)
>>
>> -kto
>
> Agreed. Can this be done within the JDK7 timeframe?
That will be tricky. JDK7 changes are now restricted, and I doub
John Coomes said the following on 05/04/11 02:37:
David Holmes (david.hol...@oracle.com) wrote:
I've just made the change as John suggested and to be honest I don't
know why I didn't think of that myself. I do see your point though, by
setting it the same the build will always use the ALT_SRC i
David Holmes said the following on 05/04/11 12:31:
No. Unless you use -e a variable's value from the environment will be
overridden by an explicit assignment in the Makefile. Which means that
the better fix here is:
+ 36 ifndef HS_ALT_SRC_REL
37 ifneq ($(OPENJDK),true)
38 # This need
20 matches
Mail list logo
