Re: RFR: JDK-8200358 Remove mapfiles for JDK executables

On 2018-04-03 23:16, Erik Joelsson wrote: Looks good to me at least. Exporting symbols from executables seems wrong so applying hidden as default seems good to me. Unfortunately, it was not this easy. :-( Out of paranoia, I also started a test run on Windows, even though it should not have bee

Re: RFR (M): JDK-8200298 Unify all unix versions of libjsig/jsig.c

Hi Magnus, Sorry for the delay ... On 28/03/2018 8:15 PM, Magnus Ihse Bursie wrote: On 2018-03-27 18:24, Thomas Stüfe wrote: Hi Magnus, just a cursory look, will look in greater detail tomorrow. This is good, thanks for doing this. As I wrote offlist, please remove the painfully wrong AIX

Re: RFR 8200468: Port the native GSS-API bridge to Windows

Hi Max, On 2018-04-04 04:19, Weijun Wang wrote: Hi All Please take a review at http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~weijun/8200468/webrev.00/ The indentation in Lib-java.security.jgss.gmk has gone wrong. The lines in the "$(eval $(call SetupJdkLibrary" stanza should still be indented four spaces

Re: RFR 8200468: Port the native GSS-API bridge to Windows

I've updated the patch in its original URL. Please confirm it's correct now. Thanks Max > On Apr 4, 2018, at 4:06 PM, Weijun Wang wrote: > > > >> On Apr 4, 2018, at 3:59 PM, Magnus Ihse Bursie >> wrote: >> >> Hi Max, >> >> On 2018-04-04 04:19, Weijun Wang wrote: >>> Hi All >>> >>> Please

Re: RFR 8200468: Port the native GSS-API bridge to Windows

> On Apr 4, 2018, at 3:59 PM, Magnus Ihse Bursie > wrote: > > Hi Max, > > On 2018-04-04 04:19, Weijun Wang wrote: >> Hi All >> >> Please take a review at >> >> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~weijun/8200468/webrev.00/ > > The indentation in Lib-java.security.jgss.gmk has gone wrong. The line

Re: RFR 8200468: Port the native GSS-API bridge to Windows

On 2018-04-04 10:06, Weijun Wang wrote: On Apr 4, 2018, at 3:59 PM, Magnus Ihse Bursie wrote: Hi Max, On 2018-04-04 04:19, Weijun Wang wrote: Hi All Please take a review at http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~weijun/8200468/webrev.00/ The indentation in Lib-java.security.jgss.gmk has gone w

RFR: JDK-8200727 linux-aarch64 profile should use bundled freetype

To facilitate cross-compiling, the linux-aarch64 jib profile should use --with-freetype=bundled. Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8200727 Patch inline: diff --git a/make/conf/jib-profiles.js b/make/conf/jib-profiles.js --- a/make/conf/jib-profiles.js +++ b/make/conf/jib-profiles.js

Execution problems with Atomic Operations on OpenJDK10 for ARM5 Soft Float

Good morning, Mi name is Juan Antonio Breña Moral, I am developing a set of Java libraries for Lego Mindstorms EV3, an ARM5 robotics device and recently, we build OpenJDK 9 with success but with OpenJDK 10, we have found some problems when we execute some Java programs. Repository to build O

Re: Execution problems with Atomic Operations on OpenJDK10 for ARM5 Soft Float

CC'ing hotspot-dev On 04/04/2018 12:29 PM, [email protected] wrote: > I think that in OpenJDK10 changed something in compare to OpenJDK9 in > relation to ARM5 support. It was OpenJDK9 which dropped support for ARM CPUs prior ARMv7. If you are using ARMv5, you have to resort to OpenJDK Zero,

Re: RFR: JDK-8200358 Remove mapfiles for JDK executables

On 2018-04-04 00:42, Magnus Ihse Bursie wrote: On 2018-04-03 23:16, Erik Joelsson wrote: Looks good to me at least. Exporting symbols from executables seems wrong so applying hidden as default seems good to me. Unfortunately, it was not this easy. :-( Out of paranoia, I also started a test ru

Re: RFR: JDK-8200727 linux-aarch64 profile should use bundled freetype

Looks good. /Erik On 2018-04-04 04:35, Magnus Ihse Bursie wrote: To facilitate cross-compiling, the linux-aarch64 jib profile should use --with-freetype=bundled. Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8200727 Patch inline: diff --git a/make/conf/jib-profiles.js b/make/conf/jib-profile

Re: RFR: JDK-8200358 Remove mapfiles for JDK executables

On Tue, Apr 3, 2018 at 1:42 PM, Magnus Ihse Bursie < [email protected]> wrote: > Here's an updated webrev that uses the same pattern as for native shared > libraries to hide non-exported symbols, for executables as well. > > I hope you're happy now :-) > > Thanks for your efforts! I k

Re: Execution problems with Atomic Operations on OpenJDK10 for ARM5 Soft Float

I believe the problem is that the VM is now using more atomic load/store of java longs and we don’t support these operations on multi-processing ARMv5 systems due to the lack of low level atomic instructions. On non MP ARMv5 systems, we use load/store multiple instructions. If you can determin

RFR: JDK-8199782: Fix compilation warnings detected by Solaris Developer Studio 12.6

Getting the sources ready for the next Solaris developer studio toolchain. Issue: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8199782 Webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~gadams/8199782/webrev.00/ This update conditionally disables some new error checks, if the new toolchain is used.

RFR: JDK-8196724: Change macosx deployment target to 10.9

This patch changes the values for the macosx version min and max settings from 10.7 to 10.9. It also changes the stdlib from libstdc++ to libc++ (explicitly for Hotspot and implicitly everywhere else). This change is necessary to keep up with newer toolchain versions on Macosx where using the o

Re: RFR: JDK-8199782: Fix compilation warnings detected by Solaris Developer Studio 12.6

Hi Gary, It looks reasonable. I'm not very familiar with the concrete SolStudio versions. Thanks, Serguei On 4/4/18 11:18, Gary Adams wrote: Getting the sources ready for the next Solaris developer studio toolchain.   Issue: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8199782   Webrev: http://

Re: RFR: JDK-8196724: Change macosx deployment target to 10.9

Erik: This patch changes the values for the macosx version min and max settings from 10.7 to 10.9. It also changes the stdlib from libstdc++ to libc++ (explicitly for Hotspot and implicitly everywhere else). This change is necessary to keep up with newer toolchain versions on Macosx where using

Re: RFR: JDK-8196724: Change macosx deployment target to 10.9

hi Erik, Thanks for doing this. I like how you are using a narrow mechanism to turn off only those warnings that come up due to deprecated APIs. Just a quick verification question (not very familiar with the makefiles), in line like this: DISABLED_WARNINGS_clang := deprecated-declarations I

Re: RFR: JDK-8196724: Change macosx deployment target to 10.9

On 2018-04-04 13:11, Gerard Ziemski wrote: hi Erik, Thanks for doing this. I like how you are using a narrow mechanism to turn off only those warnings that come up due to deprecated APIs. Just a quick verification question (not very familiar with the makefiles), in line like this: DISABLED_

Re: RFR: JDK-8200083: Bump bootjdk requirement for JDK 11 to JDK 10

Updating the bootjdk requirement for JDK 11 was controversial. Instead I propose that for now, we just update the bootjdk used for building JDK 11 at Oracle to JDK 10 and let compatibility with JDK 9 be a best effort from the parts of the community that wants to support it. Webrev: http://cr.o

RFR: JDK-8200083: Bump bootjdk used for JDK 11 at Oracle to JDK 10

Resending with corrected title. On 2018-04-04 13:54, Erik Joelsson wrote: Updating the bootjdk requirement for JDK 11 was controversial. Instead I propose that for now, we just update the bootjdk used for building JDK 11 at Oracle to JDK 10 and let compatibility with JDK 9 be a best effort fr

Re: RFR: JDK-8200083: Bump bootjdk used for JDK 11 at Oracle to JDK 10

Erik, Why bother? What are you trying to achieve? Either the boot JDK is JDK 9, or it is JDK 10. This should be a clear decision. If internally at Oracle, we use 10, then as soon as code creeps in that relies on 10 features, we've broken the commitment to the community for allowing 9 as a

Re: Execution problems with Atomic Operations on OpenJDK10 for ARM5 Soft Float

Hi, This was already reported as: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8200580 to which I have responded and closed the bug as this is not a supported platform. As per the bug report this may be due to the change to AssumeMP to be true, but there is no MP support for ARMv5. David On

RFR: JDK-8199539: Provide a standard way for the build to filter un-needed legal .md files

When bundling legal files, we need to filter them according to what 3rd party components are actually included in the build. Several components, such as zlib, libjpeg and freetype can be linked with system libraries instead, and if so, we should also exclude the legal files for that component.

Re: RFR: JDK-8200083: Bump bootjdk used for JDK 11 at Oracle to JDK 10

I'm a big fan of portability and flexibility, so I would want to test with all the supported boot jdks, perhaps even chosen randomly. But if you test with only one boot jdk, then it should be the recommended version.

Re: RFR: JDK-8199782: Fix compilation warnings detected by Solaris Developer Studio 12.6

Hi Gary, On 5/04/2018 4:18 AM, Gary Adams wrote: Getting the sources ready for the next Solaris developer studio toolchain.   Issue: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8199782   Webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~gadams/8199782/webrev.00/ This update conditionally disables some new er

Re: RFR: JDK-8200375: Change to GCC 7.3.0 for building Linux at Oracle

On 4/04/2018 4:14 AM, Erik Joelsson wrote: This patch changes the default devkit used to produce builds for Linux x64 at Oracle. The new devkit is based on GCC 7.3.0. Webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~erikj/8200375/webrev.01/ What does the final part of gcc7.3.0-OEL6.4+1.0 refer to? It was

Re: RFR: JDK-8200375: Change to GCC 7.3.0 for building Linux at Oracle

On 2018-04-04 17:05, David Holmes wrote: On 4/04/2018 4:14 AM, Erik Joelsson wrote: This patch changes the default devkit used to produce builds for Linux x64 at Oracle. The new devkit is based on GCC 7.3.0. Webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~erikj/8200375/webrev.01/ What does the final par

Re: RFR: JDK-8199782: Fix compilation warnings detected by Solaris Developer Studio 12.6

On 2018-04-04 17:00, David Holmes wrote: Hi Gary, On 5/04/2018 4:18 AM, Gary Adams wrote: Getting the sources ready for the next Solaris developer studio toolchain.    Issue: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8199782    Webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~gadams/8199782/webrev.00/ Thi

Re: RFR: JDK-8200375: Change to GCC 7.3.0 for building Linux at Oracle

I presume build folk are aware that older compilers produce more portable binaries. My own rule of thumb is to use 5 year old compilers - battle tested, well aged, but haven't turned to vinegar yet. On Tue, Apr 3, 2018 at 11:14 AM, Erik Joelsson wrote: > This patch changes the default devkit use

Re: RFR: JDK-8196724: Change macosx deployment target to 10.9

Looks fine. On 04/04/2018 11:30, Erik Joelsson wrote: This patch changes the values for the macosx version min and max settings from 10.7 to 10.9. It also changes the stdlib from libstdc++ to libc++ (explicitly for Hotspot and implicitly everywhere else). This change is necessary to keep up wi

Re: RFR: JDK-8200083: Bump bootjdk used for JDK 11 at Oracle to JDK 10

On 5/04/2018 7:00 AM, Jonathan Gibbons wrote: Erik, Why bother?  What are you trying to achieve? Either the boot JDK is JDK 9, or it is JDK 10.  This should be a clear decision. If internally at Oracle, we use 10, then as soon as code creeps in that relies on 10 features, we've broken the c

Re: Execution problems with Atomic Operations on OpenJDK10 for ARM5 Soft Float

Good night David, It is the first time that I report a Bug on OpenJDK and I didn´t receive any notification so I didn´t know the status of the Issue that I reported. Many thanks with the link about the Platforms supported: http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/java/javase/documentation/jdk10certc

Re: RFR: JDK-8200083: Bump bootjdk used for JDK 11 at Oracle to JDK 10

On Wed, Apr 4, 2018 at 5:03 PM, David Holmes wrote: > On 5/04/2018 7:00 AM, Jonathan Gibbons wrote: > >> >> I have to agree. There can't be two bootJDK versions. I have to disagree. You could design openjdk to be buildable by any set of boot JDKs. It's only the fact that javac happens to be wr

Re: RFR: JDK-8200083: Bump bootjdk used for JDK 11 at Oracle to JDK 10

On 5/04/2018 11:56 AM, Martin Buchholz wrote: On Wed, Apr 4, 2018 at 5:03 PM, David Holmes > wrote: On 5/04/2018 7:00 AM, Jonathan Gibbons wrote: I have to agree. There can't be two bootJDK versions. I have to disagree.  You could design openjdk to be

Re: Execution problems with Atomic Operations on OpenJDK10 for ARM5 Soft Float

On 5/04/2018 11:26 AM, [email protected] wrote: Good night David, It is the first time that I report a Bug on OpenJDK and I didn´t receive any notification so I didn´t know the status of the Issue that I reported. Sorry about that. You should have received some form of notification. Man

Re: Execution problems with Atomic Operations on OpenJDK10 for ARM5 Soft Float

Hi David, Many thanks for the comments. In relation to the ARMV5 support, in the past Oracle released a version for Mindstorms: http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/java/embedded/downloads/javase/javaseemeddedev3-1982511.html but if you observe that release was Java 8. For Java 9, we could buil

Re: Execution problems with Atomic Operations on OpenJDK10 for ARM5 Soft Float

On 5/04/2018 1:30 PM, [email protected] wrote: Hi David, Many thanks for the comments. In relation to the ARMV5 support, in the past Oracle released a version for Mindstorms: http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/java/embedded/downloads/javase/javaseemeddedev3-1982511.html but if you obser