Several Linux distros now build with link time optimizations (-flto=auto) by
default. It looks like 15 and newer versions can be built with -flto. I haven't
yet checked test results for LTO/non-LTO builds. I also only tried building with
GCC 10.
11 still fails with
/usr/bin/ld: /tmp/libjvm.so.xGm
On 1/27/21 10:35 AM, Magnus Ihse Bursie wrote:
> On 2021-01-26 17:08, Matthias Klose wrote:
>> Several Linux distros now build with link time optimizations (-flto=auto) by
>> default. It looks like 15 and newer versions can be built with -flto. I
>> haven't
>>
On 6/2/21 6:25 PM, Jonathan Gibbons wrote:
> Please review the change to update to using jtreg 6.
>
> The primary change is to the jib-profiles.js file, which specifies the
> version of jtreg to use, for those systems that rely on this file. In
> addition, the `requiredVersion` has been updated
On 27.10.2017 12:46, Magnus Ihse Bursie wrote:
>
> On 2017-10-27 12:21, David Holmes wrote:
>> Adding build-dev.
>>
>> David
>>
>> On 27/10/2017 9:13 AM, Matthias Klose wrote:
>>> On 27.10.2017 00:56, Matthias Klose wrote:
>>>> Hi,
>&g
Since b14 or b15, the client VM on x86 doesn't build anymore when building with
--with-jvm-variants=client,server --with-num-cores=4
building with one to three cores seems to work however. The server and zero VMs
build without issues and parallel builds. Any idea which dependencies got dropp
with jdk-12+22, bootcycle builds fail at least on x86_64-linux-gnu. Is there
some place where I can check if this kind of build succeeds for others?
thanks, Matthias
On 04.12.18 14:54, Aleksey Shipilev wrote:
> On 12/4/18 2:24 PM, Matthias Klose wrote:
>> with jdk-12+22, bootcycle builds fail at least on x86_64-linux-gnu. Is there
>> some place where I can check if this kind of build succeeds for others?
>
> Just did this on jdk/j
On 06.12.18 17:41, Aleksey Shipilev wrote:
> On 12/6/18 4:34 PM, Matthias Klose wrote:
>> my bad, that happens in the test-image target:
>>
>> In the build log I see:
>>
>> FindJtregGroups /home/packages/openjdk/12/openjdk-12-12~23/test/jdk
>> FindJtregGrou
On 06.12.18 20:04, Erik Joelsson wrote:
> Could you insert this before line 1087 in make/Main.gmk and post the output?
>
> $(call PrintVar, ALL_NAMED_TESTS)
>
> /Erik
>
> On 2018-12-06 10:31, Matthias Klose wrote:
>> On 06.12.18 17:41, Aleksey Shipilev wrote:
>&
wrong with the configury in [1]?
[1]
https://buildd.debian.org/status/fetch.php?pkg=openjdk-12&arch=amd64&ver=12~23-2&stamp=1544145960&raw=0
[2] https://buildd.debian.org/status/package.php?p=openjdk-12
>
> /Erik
>
> On 2018-12-06 11:23, Matthias Klose wrote:
>
On 10.12.18 11:19, Magnus Ihse Bursie wrote:
>
>
> On 2018-12-09 11:58, Matthias Klose wrote:
>> On 06.12.18 22:03, Erik Joelsson wrote:
>>> Nothing strange in there. Is it only printed once? I wouldn't be surprised
>>> if
>>> this got printed mo
On 10.12.18 11:49, Magnus Ihse Bursie wrote:
>
>
> On 2018-12-10 11:31, Severin Gehwolf wrote:
>> On Mon, 2018-12-10 at 11:19 +0100, Magnus Ihse Bursie wrote:
>>> On 2018-12-09 11:58, Matthias Klose wrote:
>>>> On 06.12.18 22:03, Erik Joelsson wrote:
>&g
When preparing packages for Debian/Ubuntu for openjdk-12, I was using versions
derived from the jdk-12+ tags (e.g. 12~31, 12~32, ...). Using the tilde
meaning "less than/earlier than 12). What build number should a build from the
jdk-12-ga get? Asking because my packaging choose to set the build
jdk-15+20 fails to build with
* For target
support_test_failure_handler_classes__the.BUILD_FAILURE_HANDLER_batch:
/packages/openjdk/15/openjdk-15-15~20/test/failure_handler/src/share/classes/jdk/test/failurehandler/jtreg/GatherDiagnosticInfoObserver.java:136:
warning: [deprecation] finishedTestin
On 4/23/20 4:05 PM, Magnus Ihse Bursie wrote:
>
>> 23 apr. 2020 kl. 15:50 skrev Igor Ignatyev :
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Apr 23, 2020, at 6:12 AM, Erik Joelsson wrote:
>>>
>>> Hello Matthias,
>>>
>>>> On 2020-04-23 05:51, Matt
ion/tagging of newer jtreg build, switching to newer jtreg in jdk and
>> updating in failurehandler.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> -- Igor
>>
>> [1]
>> http://hg.openjdk.java.net/code-tools/jtreg/file/fc37a1d7f0ea/make/build-all.sh#l129
>>
>>
>>> On A
On 20.10.2015 10:28, Erik Joelsson wrote:
Hello Matthias,
I think this looks good and can sponsor the push for you. Have you signed the
OCA?
see http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/community/oca-486395.html#k
/Erik
On 2015-10-19 22:06, Matthias Klose wrote:
Toolchains for some Linux
On 20.10.2015 09:36, David Holmes wrote:
On 20/10/2015 6:50 AM, Matthias Klose wrote:
I'm working around some build failures for zero targets, which fail to
build because the configury in openjdk tries to set -m32/-m64 on it's
own. I assume this behaviour was added for sun/orac
The build 116 broke the zero build on s390x, this is just a simple typo. Please
apply. This at least lets the first build finish in the bootcycle build before
the vm crashes in the second one.
However this build change broke the build on all archs which are not explicitly
handled in this alte
The zero build for architectures not explicitly listed fails currently in
hotspot, because of an unset macro, and the compiler complains about a single -D
option passed.
Here are two proposals how to fix these:
- Not passing the -D if it is not set. Afaik the define
is only used for hotspot b
On 31.08.2016 17:11, Tim Bell wrote:
> Erik Joelsson wrote:
>
>> Sponsoring the suggested patch.
>>
>> Matthias, could you verify that I got it right and that it works for
>> you? I don't have a setup where I can test such a platform.
>>
>> Webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~erikj/8165158/webrev.
at least in 9b134 the build system currently picks up the wrong compiler flag on
linux sparc targets. The patch below only applies it for solaris builds.
--- a/common/autoconf/flags.m4
+++ b/common/autoconf/flags.m4
@@ -921,7 +921,7 @@
# Set some additional per-CPU defines.
if test "x$OPENJD
The attached patch adds support for building zero for the x86_64-linux-gnux32
target, having changes in the build system, hotspot and jdk.
- the build system currently only derives the target from
the cpu in PLATFORM_EXTRACT_VARS_FROM_CPU; that is not enough
for the new target, which only d
On 12.01.2017 11:43, Staffan Larsen wrote:
> jtreg 4.2 b05 was recently promoted with some important fixes. Please review
> the change below to upgrade jdk9-dev to the new version. I have run
> jdk-tier1, jdk-tier2 and jdk-tier3 on linux and os x with this change and did
> not see any new test f
Hi, I don't know why the jtreg check was tightened or changes, however it breaks
the build on FHS based systems, like on most Linux distros.
/usr/bin/jtreg
/usr/share/java/jtreg.jar
What is this supposed to check? Currenlty it expects a JT_HOME, but apparently
only uses the locaton of the jar
Andrew Haley schrieb:
> The page is at http://icedtea.classpath.org/wiki/IcedTea_JDK6_Patches
> SCA: Enter "OK" here if you are certain that all authors of this patch have an
> SCA on file.
this is not correct. AFAIU all authors of the patch have to submit the patch
under the SCA, just having an
26 matches
Mail list logo
