On Aug 7 2013, at 20:47 , Jonathan Gibbons wrote:
> On 08/07/2013 07:33 PM, Stuart Marks wrote:
>> On 8/7/13 6:44 PM, Jonathan Gibbons wrote:
>>> On 08/07/2013 06:22 PM, Alan Bateman wrote:
It's good to see this logic going away. Also defaulting the output
directory
to TEST_ROOT (
On 08/08/2013 03:11 AM, Jonathan Gibbons wrote:
On 08/07/2013 07:10 PM, Stuart Marks wrote:
I'd suggest putting a comment at the top of the test class saying that
this test *must* be run in othervm mode, to ensure that files are
closed properly. That way, you can take out the cleanupFiles() meth
On 8/08/2013 4:48 PM, Konstantin Perikov wrote:
Tools summary:
* Boot JDK: java version "1.7.0_40" OpenJDK Runtime Environment
(IcedTea 2.4.1) (ArchLinux build 7.u40_2.4.1-2-x86_64) OpenJDK 64-Bit
Server VM (build 24.0-b50, mixed mode) (at /usr/lib/jvm/java-7-openjdk)
* C Compiler: gcT
On 08/08/2013 10:33 AM, David Holmes wrote:
> With gcc 4.8.1 you are really on the bleeding edge here. Some things
> will be broken - eg stack walking (used by NativeMemoryTracking and in
> error reports).
I didn't know. Do you have any more information about that?
Andrew.
On 8/08/2013 7:37 PM, Andrew Haley wrote:
On 08/08/2013 10:33 AM, David Holmes wrote:
With gcc 4.8.1 you are really on the bleeding edge here. Some things
will be broken - eg stack walking (used by NativeMemoryTracking and in
error reports).
I didn't know. Do you have any more information abo
On 08/08/2013 10:48 AM, David Holmes wrote:
> On 8/08/2013 7:37 PM, Andrew Haley wrote:
>> On 08/08/2013 10:33 AM, David Holmes wrote:
>>> With gcc 4.8.1 you are really on the bleeding edge here. Some things
>>> will be broken - eg stack walking (used by NativeMemoryTracking and in
>>> error report
Hi,
I started building with gcc4.8.0 and Manjaro ( >> son of arch linux << )
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/adopt-openjdk/-6CQLEclN-Q/NkrCc96WeM8J
But only with gcc 4.8.1 and 20 days later hacking 3 lines of make file.
http://www.heliofrota.com/blog/2013/06/25/building-openjdk8-plus-gcc-4-
On 08/08/2013 11:07 AM, Helio Frota wrote:
> I started building with gcc4.8.0 and Manjaro ( >> son of arch linux << )
> https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/adopt-openjdk/-6CQLEclN-Q/NkrCc96WeM8J
>
> But only with gcc 4.8.1 and 20 days later hacking 3 lines of make file.
> http://www.heliofrota.
With manjaro ( son of arch linux ) in this time ( 25 jun 2013 ), yes.
With Fedora 19 was precompiled headers and warning messages.
So, Omair Majid did a tip to use this:
make DEBUG_BINARIES=true SCTP_WERROR="" all
And no problems anymore.
2013/8/8 Andrew Haley
> On 08/08/2013 11:07 AM, H
My las openJDK build was 2 weeks ago with fedora 19 + gcc 4.8.1.
I going to do a new build today and give feedback.
Cheers,
Helio
2013/8/8 Helio Frota
> With manjaro ( son of arch linux ) in this time ( 25 jun 2013 ), yes.
>
> With Fedora 19 was precompiled headers and warning messages.
>
> S
Henry,
For some unknown for me reason, macros in bsd_x86_64.s is not processed.
(Makefile issue???)
I use:
mv bsd_x86_64.s bsd_x86_64.s.pp
cpp bsd_x86_64.s.pp > bsd_x86_64.s
as a dirty workaround.
-Dmitry
(CC'in java-bsd)
On 2013-08-08 06:34, David Holmes wrote:
> Moving to build-dev as buil
On 08/08/2013 11:52 AM, Dmitry Samersoff wrote:
> For some unknown for me reason, macros in bsd_x86_64.s is not processed.
> (Makefile issue???)
It should be called bsd_x86_64.S if this is using GCC.
Andrew.
Andrew,
Thank you!
-Dmitry
On 2013-08-08 15:07, Andrew Haley wrote:
> On 08/08/2013 11:52 AM, Dmitry Samersoff wrote:
>> For some unknown for me reason, macros in bsd_x86_64.s is not processed.
>> (Makefile issue???)
>
> It should be called bsd_x86_64.S if this is using GCC.
>
> Andrew.
>
-
Filed a bug:
https://jbs.oracle.com/bugs/browse/JDK-8022617
-Dmitry
On 2013-08-08 06:34, David Holmes wrote:
> Moving to build-dev as build-infra-dev is effectively obsolete now.
>
> The official gcc toolset is version 4.3 as I recall but as FreeBSD is
> not one of Oracle's supported platforms
Trimmed cc list
On 8/08/2013 9:07 PM, Andrew Haley wrote:
On 08/08/2013 11:52 AM, Dmitry Samersoff wrote:
For some unknown for me reason, macros in bsd_x86_64.s is not processed.
(Makefile issue???)
It should be called bsd_x86_64.S if this is using GCC.
So gcc (llvm-gcc?) on OSX doesn't req
On 08/08/2013 01:17 PM, David Holmes wrote:
> Trimmed cc list
>
> On 8/08/2013 9:07 PM, Andrew Haley wrote:
>> On 08/08/2013 11:52 AM, Dmitry Samersoff wrote:
>>> For some unknown for me reason, macros in bsd_x86_64.s is not processed.
>>> (Makefile issue???)
>>
>> It should be called bsd_x86_64.S
On 8/08/2013 10:20 PM, Andrew Haley wrote:
On 08/08/2013 01:17 PM, David Holmes wrote:
Trimmed cc list
On 8/08/2013 9:07 PM, Andrew Haley wrote:
On 08/08/2013 11:52 AM, Dmitry Samersoff wrote:
For some unknown for me reason, macros in bsd_x86_64.s is not processed.
(Makefile issue???)
It sh
David,
On 2013-08-08 16:17, David Holmes wrote:
> Trimmed cc list
>
> On 8/08/2013 9:07 PM, Andrew Haley wrote:
>> On 08/08/2013 11:52 AM, Dmitry Samersoff wrote:
>>> For some unknown for me reason, macros in bsd_x86_64.s is not processed.
>>> (Makefile issue???)
>>
>> It should be called bsd_x86
On 08/08/2013 12:00 AM, Mike Duigou wrote:
On Aug 7 2013, at 20:47 , Jonathan Gibbons wrote:
On 08/07/2013 07:33 PM, Stuart Marks wrote:
On 8/7/13 6:44 PM, Jonathan Gibbons wrote:
On 08/07/2013 06:22 PM, Alan Bateman wrote:
It's good to see this logic going away. Also defaulting the output d
On 08/08/2013 01:54 AM, Chris Hegarty wrote:
On 08/08/2013 03:11 AM, Jonathan Gibbons wrote:
On 08/07/2013 07:10 PM, Stuart Marks wrote:
I'd suggest putting a comment at the top of the test class saying that
this test *must* be run in othervm mode, to ensure that files are
closed properly. That
On 08/08/2013 05:01 PM, Jonathan Gibbons wrote:
On 08/08/2013 12:00 AM, Mike Duigou wrote:
On Aug 7 2013, at 20:47 , Jonathan Gibbons wrote:
On 08/07/2013 07:33 PM, Stuart Marks wrote:
On 8/7/13 6:44 PM, Jonathan Gibbons wrote:
On 08/07/2013 06:22 PM, Alan Bateman wrote:
It's good to see th
On 08/08/2013 09:13 AM, Chris Hegarty wrote:
So we need a b07 of jtreg before we can proceed with this?
-Chris.
General question to all:
How much will fall over if we call it 4.2?
-- Jon
On 2013-08-08, at 9:13, Chris Hegarty wrote:
> On 08/08/2013 05:01 PM, Jonathan Gibbons wrote:
>> On 08/08/2013 12:00 AM, Mike Duigou wrote:
>>> On Aug 7 2013, at 20:47 , Jonathan Gibbons wrote:
>>>
On 08/07/2013 07:33 PM, Stuart Marks wrote:
> On 8/7/13 6:44 PM, Jonathan Gibbons wr
On 2013-08-08, at 9:22, Jonathan Gibbons wrote:
> On 08/08/2013 09:13 AM, Chris Hegarty wrote:
>>
>> So we need a b07 of jtreg before we can proceed with this?
>>
>> -Chris.
>
> General question to all:
>
> How much will fall over if we call it 4.2?
Some of the build scripts and makefies us
On 8/8/13 1:54 AM, Chris Hegarty wrote:
On 08/08/2013 03:11 AM, Jonathan Gibbons wrote:
On 08/07/2013 07:10 PM, Stuart Marks wrote:
I'd suggest putting a comment at the top of the test class saying that
this test *must* be run in othervm mode, to ensure that files are
closed properly. That way,
Haven't rebuilt a release version yet for a true comparison but here are
my fastdebug times with anti-virus turned off; about the same as release
with anti-virus on.
00:04:30 corba
00:07:25 demos
00:16:28 docs
00:16:15 hotspot
00:23:13 images
00:04:18 jaxp
00:07:29 jaxws
00:59:41 jdk
00:05:11 lang
man gcc on mac,
>file.s
>Assembler code. Apple's version of GCC runs the preprocessor on
> these files as well as those ending in .S.
>
>file.S
>Assembler code which must be preprocessed.
>
Cheers,
Henry
On Aug 8, 2013, at 5:36 AM, David Holmes wrote
On 9/08/2013 3:31 PM, Henry Jen wrote:
man gcc on mac,
file.s
Assembler code. Apple's version of GCC runs the preprocessor on
these files as well as those ending in .S.
file.S
Assembler code which must be preprocessed.
Thanks Henry - mystery solved.
28 matches
Mail list logo
