Re: (urgent) RFR: JDK-8201222: JDK-8199539 broke the OpenJDK build

Erik: The fix in JDK-8199539 works fine for OracleJDK builds but broke the OpenJDK build. The problem is that I used CUSTOM_ROOT as the SRC dir for SetupCopyFiles. This was a bit of a hack together with FLATTEN := true. The idea was that I didn't care about the source dir but just wanted each

Re: (urgent) RFR: JDK-8201221: JDK-8199608 introduced a build race on macosx

Erik: JDK-8199608 introduced a build race on macosx and is failing all our macosx builds. The declaration: $(BUILD_LIBFONTMANAGER): $(BUILD_LIBAWT_LWAWT) does not work because the SetupNativeCompilation call for BUILD_LIBAWT_LWAWT is positioned further down in the file. I propose this patch:

(urgent) RFR: JDK-8201222: JDK-8199539 broke the OpenJDK build

The fix in JDK-8199539 works fine for OracleJDK builds but broke the OpenJDK build. The problem is that I used CUSTOM_ROOT as the SRC dir for SetupCopyFiles. This was a bit of a hack together with FLATTEN := true. The idea was that I didn't care about the source dir but just wanted each file

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

On 4/5/18 10:57 AM, Erik Joelsson wrote: On 2018-04-05 09:15, Jonathan Gibbons wrote: I think one aspect of this discussion that is important and has been overlooked is that there is no clear statement (specification?) anywhere of the requirements for building OpenJDK. Since forever, the

(urgent) RFR: JDK-8201221: JDK-8199608 introduced a build race on macosx

JDK-8199608 introduced a build race on macosx and is failing all our macosx builds. The declaration: $(BUILD_LIBFONTMANAGER): $(BUILD_LIBAWT_LWAWT) does not work because the SetupNativeCompilation call for BUILD_LIBAWT_LWAWT is positioned further down in the file. I propose this patch:

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

On 2018-04-05 17:51, Erik Joelsson wrote: Thanks, but after writing this I felt like I could so easily unify the implementation. Here is a new webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~erikj/8199539/webrev.02/index.html Even better! :) /Magnus /Erik On 2018-04-05 01:45, Magnus Ihse Bursie

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

On 2018-04-04 18:56, 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

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

On 2018-04-05 09:15, Jonathan Gibbons wrote: I think one aspect of this discussion that is important and has been overlooked is that there is no clear statement (specification?) anywhere of the requirements for building OpenJDK. Since forever, the unwritten rule has been N-1 [*] and that

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

Erik: Thanks, but after writing this I felt like I could so easily unify the implementation. Here is a new webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~erikj/8199539/webrev.02/index.html Looks good. Tim /Erik On 2018-04-05 01:45, Magnus Ihse Bursie wrote: On 2018-04-05 01:06, Erik Joelsson

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

I think one aspect of this discussion that is important and has been overlooked is that there is no clear statement (specification?) anywhere of the requirements for building OpenJDK. Since forever, the unwritten rule has been N-1 [*] and that assumption has become pervasive. And, as we have

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

Thanks, but after writing this I felt like I could so easily unify the implementation. Here is a new webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~erikj/8199539/webrev.02/index.html /Erik On 2018-04-05 01:45, Magnus Ihse Bursie wrote: On 2018-04-05 01:06, Erik Joelsson wrote: When bundling legal

Re: missing JNIEXPORT / JNICALL at some places in function declarations/implementations

That's most likely a result of the new JNIEXPORT I added as part of the mapfile removal. I tried to match header file and C file, but I can certainly have missed cases. If I didn't get any warnings, it was hard to know what I missed. Please do submit your patch. I'm a bit surprised 32-bit

missing JNIEXPORT / JNICALL at some places in function declarations/implementations

Hello, we noticed that at a number of places in the coding , the JNIEXPORT and/or JNICALL modifiers do not match when one compares the declaration and The implementation of functions. While this is ok on most platforms, it seems to fail on Windows 32 bit and leads to errors like

Re: RFR: JDK-8199608 Clean up LDFLAGS for libfontmanager

Looks good. /Erik On 2018-04-05 02:31, Magnus Ihse Bursie wrote: On 2018-03-14 22:17, Magnus Ihse Bursie wrote: On 2018-03-14 22:05, Phil Race wrote: >I see we used to link with libawt_headless for solaris, but removed it in >JDK-8194870. Phil remarked in that bug: "We linked against

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

This looks good, hopefully for the last time. :) Thanks for hanging in there! /Erik On 2018-04-05 02:16, Magnus Ihse Bursie wrote: On 2018-04-04 17:25, Erik Joelsson wrote: 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.

Re: jdk build fails due to "warning: ‘readdir_r’ is deprecated"

On 5/04/2018 11:05 PM, Magnus Ihse Bursie wrote: I ran into this myself just now... While we could, of course, disable the warning, I wonder if this is the right way to go. It seems to be deprecated for good reasons. See the readdir_r man page:

Re: jdk build fails due to "warning: ‘readdir_r’ is deprecated"

I ran into this myself just now... While we could, of course, disable the warning, I wonder if this is the right way to go. It seems to be deprecated for good reasons. See the readdir_r man page: http://man7.org/linux/man-pages/man3/readdir_r.3.html I quote: It is recommended that

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

On 2018-04-05 14:09, David Holmes wrote: :) V12 looks fine. Sorry I didnt see this before previous email. Finally! :-) I'll wait for Thomas to test on AIX as well, then I believe this is finally ready to push. /Magnus David On 5/04/2018 9:51 PM, Magnus Ihse Bursie wrote: On 2018-04-05

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

Hi Juan Antonio, > -Original Message- > From: b...@juanantonio.info [mailto:b...@juanantonio.info] > > 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. Yes, there

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

On 2018-04-04 20:18, 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://cr.openjdk.java.net/~gadams/8199782/webrev.00/ This update conditionally disables some new error checks,

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

:) V12 looks fine. Sorry I didnt see this before previous email. David On 5/04/2018 9:51 PM, Magnus Ihse Bursie wrote: On 2018-04-05 13:07, Magnus Ihse Bursie wrote: On 2018-04-05 12:30, David Holmes wrote: On 5/04/2018 7:52 PM, Magnus Ihse Bursie wrote: On 2018-04-05 10:30, David Holmes

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

On 5/04/2018 9:07 PM, Magnus Ihse Bursie wrote: On 2018-04-05 12:30, David Holmes wrote: On 5/04/2018 7:52 PM, Magnus Ihse Bursie wrote: On 2018-04-05 10:30, David Holmes wrote: On 5/04/2018 6:07 PM, Magnus Ihse Bursie wrote: On 2018-04-04 09:59, David Holmes wrote: Hi Magnus, Sorry

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

On 2018-04-05 13:07, Magnus Ihse Bursie wrote: On 2018-04-05 12:30, David Holmes wrote: On 5/04/2018 7:52 PM, Magnus Ihse Bursie wrote: On 2018-04-05 10:30, David Holmes wrote: On 5/04/2018 6:07 PM, Magnus Ihse Bursie wrote: On 2018-04-04 09:59, David Holmes wrote: Hi Magnus, Sorry for

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

On 2018-04-05 13:07, Magnus Ihse Bursie wrote: On 2018-04-05 12:30, David Holmes wrote: On 5/04/2018 7:52 PM, Magnus Ihse Bursie wrote: On 2018-04-05 10:30, David Holmes wrote: On 5/04/2018 6:07 PM, Magnus Ihse Bursie wrote: On 2018-04-04 09:59, David Holmes wrote: Hi Magnus, Sorry for

Re: RFR (8u): 8034788: Rewrite toolchain.m4 to support multiple toolchains per platform

That's great, thanks Magnus. On 05/04/2018 11:53, Magnus Ihse Bursie wrote: On 2018-04-05 10:46, Kevin Walls wrote: Hi, I'd like to get a technical review of a backport to jdk8u: 8034788: Rewrite toolchain.m4 to support multiple toolchains per platform JBS:

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

On 2018-04-05 12:30, David Holmes wrote: On 5/04/2018 7:52 PM, Magnus Ihse Bursie wrote: On 2018-04-05 10:30, David Holmes wrote: On 5/04/2018 6:07 PM, Magnus Ihse Bursie wrote: On 2018-04-04 09:59, David Holmes wrote: Hi Magnus, Sorry for the delay ... On 28/03/2018 8:15 PM, Magnus Ihse

Re: RFR (8u): 8034788: Rewrite toolchain.m4 to support multiple toolchains per platform

On 2018-04-05 10:46, Kevin Walls wrote: Hi, I'd like to get a technical review of a backport to jdk8u: 8034788: Rewrite toolchain.m4 to support multiple toolchains per platform JBS: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8034788 9 changeset:

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

On 5/04/2018 7:52 PM, Magnus Ihse Bursie wrote: On 2018-04-05 10:30, David Holmes wrote: On 5/04/2018 6:07 PM, Magnus Ihse Bursie wrote: On 2018-04-04 09:59, David Holmes wrote: Hi Magnus, Sorry for the delay ... On 28/03/2018 8:15 PM, Magnus Ihse Bursie wrote: On 2018-03-27 18:24,

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

On 2018-04-05 10:30, David Holmes wrote: On 5/04/2018 6:07 PM, Magnus Ihse Bursie wrote: On 2018-04-04 09:59, David Holmes wrote: 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,

Re: RFR: JDK-8199608 Clean up LDFLAGS for libfontmanager

On 2018-03-14 22:17, Magnus Ihse Bursie wrote: On 2018-03-14 22:05, Phil Race wrote: >I see we used to link with libawt_headless for solaris, but removed it in >JDK-8194870. Phil remarked in that bug: "We linked against headless before then >but allowed undefined symbols JDK 9 switched

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

On 2018-04-04 17:25, Erik Joelsson wrote: 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.

RFR (8u): 8034788: Rewrite toolchain.m4 to support multiple toolchains per platform

Hi, I'd like to get a technical review of a backport to jdk8u: 8034788: Rewrite toolchain.m4 to support multiple toolchains per platform JBS: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8034788 9 changeset: http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk9/jdk9/rev/b18872ff5379 8u webrev:

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

On 2018-04-05 01:06, Erik Joelsson wrote: 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

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

On 2018-04-04 09:59, David Holmes wrote: 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

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

On 5/04/2018 6:07 PM, Magnus Ihse Bursie wrote: On 2018-04-04 09:59, David Holmes wrote: 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.

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

On 04/04/2018 22:00, 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

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

On 2018-04-05 04:01, David Holmes wrote: 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