Re: RFR: 8288001: SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH should not be set by default

On Mon, 13 Jun 2022 07:14:15 GMT, Magnus Ihse Bursie wrote: >> At default configuration, SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH is exported as environment >> variable in SetupReproducibleBuild. Then, gcc is affected of >> SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH environment variable. This value is used only to set >>

Re: RFR: 8288001: SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH should not be set by default

On Wed, 8 Jun 2022 07:47:24 GMT, KIRIYAMA Takuya wrote: > At default configuration, SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH is exported as environment > variable in SetupReproducibleBuild. Then, gcc is affected of > SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH environment variable. This value is used only to set > SOURCE_DATE_ISO_8601

Integrated: 8286430: make test TEST="gtest:" exits with error when it shouldn't

On Mon, 9 May 2022 18:39:28 GMT, Severin Gehwolf wrote: > `make test TEST="gtest: `1.10.0`. It expects `suites` to be present in the google test output whereas > the OpenJDK build infra code expects `cases`. I'm not sure when/if that > changed, but here is a proposed fix.

Re: RFR: 8286430: make test TEST="gtest:" exits with error when it shouldn't [v2]

On Tue, 10 May 2022 08:46:44 GMT, Severin Gehwolf wrote: >> `make test TEST="gtest:> `1.10.0`. It expects `suites` to be present in the google test output >> whereas the OpenJDK build infra code expects `cases`. I'm not sure when/if >> that changed, but here is a pro

Re: RFR: 8286430: make test TEST="gtest:" exits with error when it shouldn't [v2]

> `make test TEST="gtest: `1.10.0`. It expects `suites` to be present in the google test output whereas > the OpenJDK build infra code expects `cases`. I'm not sure when/if that > changed, but here is a proposed fix. > > Thoughts? Severin Gehwolf has updated the pull r

Re: RFR: 8286430: make test TEST="gtest:" exits with error when it shouldn't

On Mon, 9 May 2022 18:39:28 GMT, Severin Gehwolf wrote: > `make test TEST="gtest: `1.10.0`. It expects `suites` to be present in the google test output whereas > the OpenJDK build infra code expects `cases`. I'm not sure when/if that > changed, but here is a proposed fix.

RFR: 8286430: make test TEST="gtest:" exits with error when it shouldn't

`make test TEST="gtest:https://git.openjdk.java.net/jdk/pull/8605/files Webrev: https://webrevs.openjdk.java.net/?repo=jdk=8605=00 Issue: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8286430 Stats: 1 line in 1 file changed: 0 ins; 0 del; 1 mod Patch:

Re: RFR: 8286105: SourceRevision.gmk should respect GIT variable

On Wed, 4 May 2022 03:06:44 GMT, Yasumasa Suenaga wrote: > We can specify `git` binary via `GIT` in configure script, but it does not > affect in SourceRevision.gmk . LGTM - Marked as reviewed by sgehwolf (Reviewer). PR: https://git.openjdk.java.net/jdk/pull/8526

Re: RFR: 8282567: Improve source-date handling in build system [v5]

On Sat, 5 Mar 2022 08:57:45 GMT, Magnus Ihse Bursie wrote: >> When doing reproducible builds, controlling the build time is imperative. To >> make this as easy as possible, some changes are needed in the build system. >> >> * If source-date is set to anything other than "updated" (meaning

Re: RFR: 8282567: Improve source-date handling in build system [v4]

On Fri, 4 Mar 2022 23:43:12 GMT, Magnus Ihse Bursie wrote: > As for RPM builds (by whom?) We, Red Hat, build OpenJDK in Fedora and RHEL via `rpmbuild` :) > suddenly being build with --enable-reproducible-build, I would not think it > is a matter of concern. For linux, the only real difference

Re: RFR: 8282567: Improve source-date handling in build system

On Wed, 2 Mar 2022 16:54:21 GMT, Magnus Ihse Bursie wrote: > To clarify, the end effect of these changes is that building OpenJDK will > basically be compliant with the method of just setting SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH. > (The caveat is that it must be set at configure time, not build time.) So > >

Re: [Ping2?] [8u] RFR: 8210283: Support git as an SCM alternative in the build

On Tue, 2022-02-15 at 02:53 +, Andrew Hughes wrote: > On 14:09 Thu 10 Feb , Severin Gehwolf wrote: > > > > Latest webrev: > > https://cr.openjdk.java.net/~sgehwolf/webrevs/JDK-8210283/02/webrev/ > > > > OK? > > > > Thanks, > > Severin

Re: [Ping2?] [8u] RFR: 8210283: Support git as an SCM alternative in the build

Hi Andrew, On Wed, 2022-02-09 at 03:54 +, Andrew Hughes wrote: > On 20:33 Thu 03 Feb , Severin Gehwolf wrote: > > On Wed, 2021-12-22 at 11:14 +0100, Severin Gehwolf wrote: > > > On Fri, 2021-12-10 at 15:11 +0100, Severin Gehwolf wrote: > > > > Hi,

Re: [Ping2?] [8u] RFR: 8210283: Support git as an SCM alternative in the build

On Wed, 2021-12-22 at 11:14 +0100, Severin Gehwolf wrote: > On Fri, 2021-12-10 at 15:11 +0100, Severin Gehwolf wrote: > > Hi, > > > > Please review this adaptation of the corresponding JDK 11 patch. The > > JDK 11u patch didn't apply because the build system is w

Re: Heads up: planned Harfbuzz update in jdk11u-dev

On Fri, 2022-01-14 at 09:19 +, Baesken, Matthias wrote: > For one of the next jdk11 updates, an update to a more recent harfbuzz > version is planned. > This has been done already in jdk/jdk some time ago, and was backported > recently to jdk13, > please see the harfbuzz 2.7.2 / 2.8.0

Re: [Ping?] [8u] RFR: 8210283: Support git as an SCM alternative in the build

On Fri, 2021-12-10 at 15:11 +0100, Severin Gehwolf wrote: > Hi, > > Please review this adaptation of the corresponding JDK 11 patch. The > JDK 11u patch didn't apply because the build system is widely different > between these two releases. > > The main difference is mak

Re: RFR: 8276746: Add section on reproducible builds in building.md

On Fri, 5 Nov 2021 16:30:26 GMT, Magnus Ihse Bursie wrote: > Reproducible builds are all the vogue. The JDK has been making great strides > in getting there, but still has some way to go. However, to get as close as > possible, some special configuration is needed. > > This has been "tribal

Withdrawn: 8271148: static-libs-image target --with-native-debug-symbols=external doesn't produce debug info

On Thu, 22 Jul 2021 16:43:26 GMT, Severin Gehwolf wrote: > Hi! > > Please review this tiny patch which removes the special casing of > `--with-native-debug-symbols=external` for the static libs build. I don't see > why this is needed. If no debug symbols are wanted > `-

Re: RFR: 8271148: static-libs-image target --with-native-debug-symbols=external doesn't produce debug info

On Thu, 22 Jul 2021 16:43:26 GMT, Severin Gehwolf wrote: > Hi! > > Please review this tiny patch which removes the special casing of > `--with-native-debug-symbols=external` for the static libs build. I don't see > why this is needed. If no debug symbols are wanted > `-

Re: RFR: 8273494: Zero: Put libjvm.so into "zero" folder, not "server"

On Thu, 9 Sep 2021 10:17:02 GMT, Aleksey Shipilev wrote: > Currently, the build system defaults the libjvm.so location to "server". > This makes looking for `libjvm.so` awkward, see JDK-8273487 for example. We > need to see if moving the libjvm.so to a proper location breaks anything. > >

Integrated: 8272332: --with-harfbuzz=system doesn't add -lharfbuzz after JDK-8255790

On Wed, 11 Aug 2021 17:58:04 GMT, Severin Gehwolf wrote: > Please review this simple build fix to correct the typo done in JDK-8255790. > After the patch correct external library is added to the `libfontmanager.so` > link command when building with `--with-harfbuzz=system`. >

Re: RFR: 8272332: --with-harfbuzz=system doesn't add -lharfbuzz after JDK-8255790

On Wed, 11 Aug 2021 18:21:14 GMT, Phil Race wrote: >> Please review this simple build fix to correct the typo done in JDK-8255790. >> After the patch correct external library is added to the `libfontmanager.so` >> link command when building with `--with-harfbuzz=system`. >> >> Thoughts? > >

RFR: 8272332: --with-harfbuzz=system doesn't add -lharfbuzz after JDK-8255790

Please review this simple build fix to correct the type done in JDK-8255790. After the patch correct external library is added to the `libfontmanager.so` link command when building with `--with-harfbuzz=system`. Thoughts? - Commit messages: - 8272332: --with-harfbuzz=system

Re: RFR: 8271148: static-libs-image target --with-native-debug-symbols=external doesn't produce debug info

On Thu, 22 Jul 2021 17:38:28 GMT, Mikael Vidstedt wrote: >> Hi! >> >> Please review this tiny patch which removes the special casing of >> `--with-native-debug-symbols=external` for the static libs build. I don't >> see why this is needed. If no debug symbols are wanted >>

RFR: 8271148: static-libs-image target --with-native-debug-symbols=external doesn't produce debug info

Hi! Please review this tiny patch which removes the special casing of `--with-native-debug-symbols=external` for the static libs build. I don't see why this is needed. If no debug symbols are wanted `--with-native-debug-symbols=none` can be used to achieve the same effect. Therefore, I

Re: RFR: 8270117: Broken jtreg link in "Building the JDK" page [v2]

On Mon, 12 Jul 2021 17:41:27 GMT, Magnus Ihse Bursie wrote: >> Paraphrased description from the bug report: >> >> The "Building the JDK" page has a jtreg download link pointing to >> >> but that gets a 404.

Re: RFR: 8270117: Broken jtreg link in "Building the JDK" page

On Mon, 12 Jul 2021 13:17:18 GMT, Magnus Ihse Bursie wrote: > Paraphrased description from the bug report: > > The "Building the JDK" page has a jtreg download link pointing to > > but that gets a 404. I

Re: RFR: 8257056: Submit workflow should apt-get update to avoid package installation errors

On Wed, 25 Nov 2020 08:56:33 GMT, Aleksey Shipilev wrote: > For example, current jobs fail with: > > Get:13 http://azure.archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu focal/main amd64 libxtst-dev > amd64 2:1.2.3-1 [15.2 kB] > E: Failed to fetch >

Re: RFR: 8252998: ModuleWrapper.gmk doesn't consult include path

On Fri, 18 Sep 2020 12:44:13 GMT, Erik Joelsson wrote: >> A change made to ModuleWrapper.gmk as part of JDK-8244044 means that an >> included makefile is found in the current >> directory, so Make doesn't check the include dirs for overriding gmk files. >> Recommend a minor, partial reversion

Re: [8u] RFR: 8252975: [8u] JDK-8252395 breaks the build for --with-native-debug-symbols=internal

Hi Andrew, On Fri, 2020-09-18 at 06:40 +0100, Andrew Hughes wrote: > On 20:16 Wed 09 Sep , Severin Gehwolf wrote: > > Hi, > > > > Please review this 8u (jdk8u/jdk8u-dev tree) fix for JDK-8252395 that > > I've pushed today. Thanks for Zhengyu Gu for noticing i

[8u] RFR: 8252975: [8u] JDK-8252395 breaks the build for --with-native-debug-symbols=internal

Hi, Please review this 8u (jdk8u/jdk8u-dev tree) fix for JDK-8252395 that I've pushed today. Thanks for Zhengyu Gu for noticing it. The pushed fix added the java.debuginfo and unpack.debuginfo make targets on the condition of ENABLE_DEBUG_SYMBOLS=true, which is insufficient. It needs another

Re: [8u] RFR: 8252395: [8u] --with-native-debug-symbols=external doesn't include debuginfo files for binaries

Hi, On Tue, 2020-09-08 at 17:05 +0100, Andrew Hughes wrote: > On 13:44 Mon 31 Aug , Severin Gehwolf wrote: > > Sorry, wrong webrev. Now corrected. > > > > On Mon, 2020-08-31 at 10:02 +0200, Severin Gehwolf wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > > > Cou

Re: jdk14 build failed cause "The header is deprecated and will be removed."

On Wed, 2020-08-05 at 15:46 +0800, 451541695 wrote: > Hello, Thanks for providing java for developers. > I am trying to build jdk-14 to use, but failed to build. > The error is following: > > My environment: >Linux:Ubuntu 20.04.1 LTS >autoconfig: > > I don't know what happened to too

Re: RFR: JDK-8251193 bin/idea.sh generating wrong source folders for JVMCI modules

Hi, On Thu, 2020-09-03 at 16:48 +0100, Maurizio Cimadamore wrote: > Sorry for the delay, > overall this looks like a good improvement, so I'll approve. > > Is there some colleague that can help you do the push? > > Let me know if you need help. I'll sponsor the patch for Galder. Yet,

Re: [8u] RFR: 8252395: [8u] --with-native-debug-symbols=external doesn't include debuginfo files for binaries

Sorry, wrong webrev. Now corrected. On Mon, 2020-08-31 at 10:02 +0200, Severin Gehwolf wrote: > Hi, > > Could I get a reivew of this 8u specific bug please? When configured > --with-native-debug-symbols=external,zipped the resulting external > debuginfo files for binaries (in im

[8u] RFR: 8252395: [8u] --with-native-debug-symbols=external doesn't include debuginfo files for binaries

Hi, Could I get a reivew of this 8u specific bug please? When configured --with-native-debug-symbols=external,zipped the resulting external debuginfo files for binaries (in images/bin folder) aren't there. In OpenJDK 8u there is some special casing involved for bin/java and bin/unpack200. Thus,

Re: RFR: 8252233: Enable debug-image target to support producing a pure debug image package

Hi Andrew, On Thu, 2020-08-27 at 16:55 +0100, Andrew Leonard wrote: > Hi, > Please may I request a sponsor and review for this build enhancement to > provide a pure debug "image", for those developers that want to accompany > a straight jdk image with a debug-image when needed: >

Re: [ping] [11u] RFR 8234535: Cross compilation fails due to missing CFLAGS for the BUILD_CC

On Wed, 2020-08-26 at 11:29 +0200, Christoph Göttschkes wrote: > > Webrev: https://cr.openjdk.java.net/~cgo/8234535/webrev-11u.00/ This looks fine to me. Thanks, Severin

Re: RFR: JDK-8251193 bin/idea.sh generating wrong source folders for JVMCI modules

Hi, On Thu, 2020-08-06 at 16:01 +0100, Maurizio Cimadamore wrote: > The basic fix looks good, I'm wondering, however, if we would only want > to enable sources which match the current configuration? E.g. not add > the sources for aarch64 if building on linux? But if we build all these >

[11u] RFR(xs): 8247874: Replacement in VersionProps.java.template not working when --with-vendor-bug-url contains '&'

Hi, Could I get a review of this OpenJDK 11 specific patch? This same issue has been solved in OpenJDK 13 and better with JDK-8223319[1] which seems an unrelated issue to the fix of this bug. Also, I have tried applying the JDK 13 patch and it doesn't apply well and would mean some form of

Re: [8u] RFR(XS): 8233880: Support compilers with multi-digit major version numbers

Hi Florian, On Mon, May 11, 2020 at 9:58 AM Florian Weimer wrote: > > * Severin Gehwolf: > > > Thanks for the review! Yes, generated-configure.sh changes are due to > > version skew of autoconf being used. I'll try to generate configure on > > an older machine so as t

Re: [8u] RFR(XS): 8233880: Support compilers with multi-digit major version numbers

Hi Andrew, On Sun, May 10, 2020 at 4:36 PM Andrew Haley wrote: > > On 5/8/20 2:17 PM, Severin Gehwolf wrote: > > Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8233880 > > webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~sgehwolf/webrevs/JDK-8233880/01/webrev/ > > > > Testing:

[8u] RFR(XS): 8233880: Support compilers with multi-digit major version numbers

Hi, Please review this OpenJDK 8u backport of JDK-8233880. It's a one-liner change which updates the toolchain.m4 code so as to recognize multi-digit GCC versions. For example Fedora 32 comes with GCC 10 and falls afoul this check. As a result, a configure warning is being produced and crucial

[8u] RFR(XS): 8243059: Build fails when --with-vendor-name contains a comma

Hi, Could I please get a review of this OpenJDK 8u backport for JDK- 8243059? The build system is wildly different to JDK 11 and later, thus is the patch. In turns out on JDK 8, SetupLauncher isn't using eval() so the evaluation of the comma too early isn't an issue there. However, on JDK 8u, the

Re: RFR: 8243656: Shell built-in test in configure depends on help

On Wed, 2020-05-06 at 10:16 +0200, Magnus Ihse Bursie wrote: > On 2020-05-05 17:15, Severin Gehwolf wrote: > > Hi, > > > > Could I please get a review of this trivial change? Apparently using > > the help builtin for determining whether or not a builtin is available >

Re: RFR: 8243656: Shell built-in test in configure depends on help

On Tue, 2020-05-05 at 08:24 -0700, Erik Joelsson wrote: > Looks good to me. Thanks for the review, Erik! Cheers, Severin > /Erik > > On 2020-05-05 08:15, Severin Gehwolf wrote: > > Hi, > > > > Could I please get a review of this trivial change? Apparen

RFR: 8243656: Shell built-in test in configure depends on help

Hi, Could I please get a review of this trivial change? Apparently using the help builtin for determining whether or not a builtin is available is not a good idea. A more portable way to do this is to use "command -v" or "type". Thanks to Michael Zucchi for contributing this fix. Bug:

Re: openjdk fails to configure due to shell builtin test

On Tue, 2020-04-28 at 14:58 +1000, David Holmes wrote: > On 28/04/2020 12:02 pm, Michael Zucchi wrote: > > Hi Severin, > > > > On 27/4/20 6:17 pm, Severin Gehwolf wrote: > > > Hi Michael, > > > > > > On Sat, 2020-04-25 at 09:39

Re: openjdk fails to configure due to shell builtin test

Hi Michael, On Sat, 2020-04-25 at 09:39 +0930, Michael Zucchi wrote: > Morning all, > > A patch from last year [1] discussed on this list adds an autoconf > fallback test for a shell builtin command using the bash command 'help > ' and invokes it for ulimit. It's probably not very portable >

[11u] RFR: 8243059: Build fails when --with-vendor-name contains a comma

Hi, Could I please get a review of this 11u backport of a build fix? The jdk/jdk patch does not apply cleanly since JDK-8222510[1] isn't in OpenJDK 11u. I.e. this makes the context different and the patch failing to apply. I've manually ported the patch. The gist is: $(VERSION_CFLAGS) =>

Re: RFR: 8243059: Build fails when --with-vendor-name contains a comma

On Fri, 2020-04-17 at 07:32 -0700, Erik Joelsson wrote: > This version looks good to me. Thanks for the review, Erik! Cheers, Severin > /Erik > > On 2020-04-17 05:15, Severin Gehwolf wrote: > > Hi Magnus, > > > > On Fri, 2020-04-17 at 13:44 +0200, Magnus Ihse Bur

Re: RFR: 8243059: Build fails when --with-vendor-name contains a comma

On Fri, 2020-04-17 at 14:28 +0200, Magnus Ihse Bursie wrote: > On 2020-04-17 14:15, Severin Gehwolf wrote: > > Hi Magnus, > > > > On Fri, 2020-04-17 at 13:44 +0200, Magnus Ihse Bursie wrote: > > > On 2020-04-17 12:18, Severin Gehwolf wrote: > > > > Hi, &g

Re: RFR: 8243059: Build fails when --with-vendor-name contains a comma

Hi Magnus, On Fri, 2020-04-17 at 13:44 +0200, Magnus Ihse Bursie wrote: > On 2020-04-17 12:18, Severin Gehwolf wrote: > > Hi, > > > > Could I please get a review of this build fix? When --with-vendor-name > > contains a comma, like 'foo, bar, Inc.' the build

RFR: 8243059: Build fails when --with-vendor-name contains a comma

Hi, Could I please get a review of this build fix? When --with-vendor-name contains a comma, like 'foo, bar, Inc.' the build fails. As it turns out SetupBuildLauncherBody calls SetupJdkExecutable with some parameters. If $(VERSION_CFLAGS) contain a comma, the comma is being treated as a prameter

Re: [RFR] [11u] JDK-8232748: "Build static versions of certain JDK libraries"

Hi Andrew, On Thu, 2020-02-27 at 15:43 +0100, Severin Gehwolf wrote: > On Thu, 2020-02-27 at 04:52 +, Andrew Hughes wrote: > > Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8232748 > > Webrev: https://cr.openjdk.java.net/~andrew/openjdk11/8232748/webrev.01/ > > > &

Re: [11u] RFR: 8189861: Refactor CacheFind

On Wed, 2020-03-11 at 12:47 +, Langer, Christoph wrote: > OK, I guess you're right. Here is the new webrev: > http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~clanger/webrevs/8189861.11u.1/ Looks good. Thanks, Severin

Re: [11u] RFR: 8189861: Refactor CacheFind

Hi, On Wed, 2020-03-11 at 09:58 +, Langer, Christoph wrote: > Hi Severin, > > thanks for the review. > > > > Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8189861 > > > Original Change: http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk/jdk/rev/e297c7bb6469 > > > Webrev:

Re: [11u] RFR: 8189861: Refactor CacheFind

Hi Christoph, Thanks for doing this! On Wed, 2020-03-11 at 08:58 +, Langer, Christoph wrote: > Hi, > > for the backports of "JDK-8223678 Add Visual Studio Code workspace > generation support (for native code)" and "JDK-8232748 Build static > versions of certain JDK libraries" it seems

Re: 11u RFR: 8232569: Use test image from different jib profile for testing

On Mon, 2020-03-09 at 15:14 +, Langer, Christoph wrote: > Is this file only used in internal Oracle builds or does it have use > cases outside? (I guess this question unmasks my ignorance in that > area ) I'd be curious about this too. There is little point in us backporting an Oracle-only

Re: [RFR] [11u] JDK-8232748: "Build static versions of certain JDK libraries"

Hi Andrew, On Thu, 2020-02-27 at 04:52 +, Andrew Hughes wrote: > Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8232748 > Webrev: https://cr.openjdk.java.net/~andrew/openjdk11/8232748/webrev.01/ > > This patch adds targets to the build so that static versions of the JDK > native libraries can

Re: [8u] RFR: 8227397: Add --with-extra-asflags configure option

Hi, Could I get a second review from an JDK 8u Reviewer, please? Thanks, Severin On Mon, 2019-09-30 at 11:36 +0200, Magnus Ihse Bursie wrote: > On 2019-09-27 17:48, Severin Gehwolf wrote: > > Hi, > > > > Could I please get a review of this 8u build change ba

Re: RFR: 8236921: Add build target to produce a JDK image suitable for a Graal/SVM build

gt; > BTW: I have a PR in our internal queue to update the graal repo so > > it can build with the latest JDK 14. I'd love to see that patch pushed to graal master! :) Thanks, Severin > > Bob. > > > > > > > On Jan 10, 2020, at 10:45 AM, Severin Gehwolf < > &

RFR: 8236921: Add build target to produce a JDK image suitable for a Graal/SVM build

Hi, Currently there is no easy way to produce an OpenJDK build which could subsequently be used to build Substrate VM (part of Graal CE). Basic building blocks are there, but no actual JDK image is getting produced with the static libs along side their dynamic counterparts. This patch addresses

Re: RFR: 8233712: Limit default tests jobs based on ulimit -u setting

On Fri, 2019-11-15 at 08:27 -0800, Erik Joelsson wrote: > On 2019-11-15 04:23, Severin Gehwolf wrote: > > Hi Erik, Magnus, > > > > On Fri, 2019-11-08 at 08:57 -0800, Erik Joelsson wrote: > > > Hello Severin, > > > > > > On 2019-11-08 07:48, Severi

Re: RFR: 8233712: Limit default tests jobs based on ulimit -u setting

Hi Erik, Magnus, On Fri, 2019-11-08 at 08:57 -0800, Erik Joelsson wrote: > Hello Severin, > > On 2019-11-08 07:48, Severin Gehwolf wrote: > > Right. I believe webrev 03 does this? > Yes, that was mostly a reply to Magnus. > > Thanks! Tried it, which doesn't s

Re: RFR: 8233712: Limit default tests jobs based on ulimit -u setting

On Fri, 2019-11-08 at 06:06 -0800, Erik Joelsson wrote: > Hello Severin, > > On 2019-11-08 05:08, Severin Gehwolf wrote: > > On Fri, 2019-11-08 at 11:26 +0100, Severin Gehwolf wrote: > > > On Fri, 2019-11-08 at 09:58 +0100, Magnus Ihse Bursie wrote: > > > >

Re: RFR: 8233712: Limit default tests jobs based on ulimit -u setting

On Fri, 2019-11-08 at 11:26 +0100, Severin Gehwolf wrote: > On Fri, 2019-11-08 at 09:58 +0100, Magnus Ihse Bursie wrote: > > On 2019-11-07 20:48, Severin Gehwolf wrote: > > > Hi Erik, > > > > > > On Thu, 2019-11-07 at 10:01 -0800, Erik J

Re: RFR: 8233712: Limit default tests jobs based on ulimit -u setting

On Fri, 2019-11-08 at 09:58 +0100, Magnus Ihse Bursie wrote: > On 2019-11-07 20:48, Severin Gehwolf wrote: > > Hi Erik, > > > > On Thu, 2019-11-07 at 10:01 -0800, Erik Joelsson wrote: > > > Hello Severin, > > > > > > Taking ulimit -u into account d

Re: RFR: 8233712: Limit default tests jobs based on ulimit -u setting

On Fri, 2019-11-08 at 09:58 +0100, Magnus Ihse Bursie wrote: > On 2019-11-07 20:48, Severin Gehwolf wrote: > > Hi Erik, > > > > On Thu, 2019-11-07 at 10:01 -0800, Erik Joelsson wrote: > > > Hello Severin, > > > > > > Taking ulimit -u into account d

Re: RFR: 8233712: Limit default tests jobs based on ulimit -u setting

sgehwolf/webrevs/JDK-8233712/02/webrev/ What do you think? Thanks, Severin > /Erik > > On 2019-11-07 06:59, Severin Gehwolf wrote: > > Hi, > > > > Could I please get a review of this change for running tests on big > > Aarch64 boxes? Currently, only memory and

RFR: 8233712: Limit default tests jobs based on ulimit -u setting

Hi, Could I please get a review of this change for running tests on big Aarch64 boxes? Currently, only memory and number of cores are taken into account for the -concurrency setting of jtreg. After this patch ulimit -u settings are taken into account as well on big Aarch64 boxes with > 16 cores,

Re: [11u] RFR: 8214311: dtrace gensrc has missing dependencies

Hi Christoph, On Wed, 2019-10-30 at 05:48 +, Langer, Christoph wrote: > Hi Severin, > > backport looks good. Thanks for doing it. Thanks for the review! Cheers, Severin > Cheers > Christoph > > > -Original Message- > > From: build-dev On Behalf O

[11u] RFR: 8214311: dtrace gensrc has missing dependencies

Hi, Please review this OpenJDK 11u backport of JDK-8214311. It's an Oracle JDK 11.0.6 feature parity patch. The jdk/jdk patch didn't apply cleanly due to context differences in make/hotspot/gensrc/GensrcDtrace.gmk. That is due to JDK-8211029 not being present in OpenJDK 11u code-base. I have

Re: [11u] RFR: 8212028: Use run-test makefile framework for testing in Oracle's Mach5

On Thu, 2019-10-10 at 13:47 +, Langer, Christoph wrote: > Adjusted webrev: > http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~clanger/webrevs/8212028.11u-dev.1/ Seems OK to me. Thanks, Severin

Re: [11u] RFR: 8212028: Use run-test makefile framework for testing in Oracle's Mach5

Hi Christoph, On Thu, 2019-10-10 at 12:16 +, Langer, Christoph wrote: > Hi, > > please help reviewing this backport of a build infrastructure change to > jdk11u. > > One reason for doing this is parity with Oracle's 11.0.6 but the patch also > contains some test improvements which will

Re: [8u] RFR: 8227397: Add --with-extra-asflags configure option

On Mon, 2019-09-30 at 11:36 +0200, Magnus Ihse Bursie wrote: > On 2019-09-27 17:48, Severin Gehwolf wrote: > > Hi, > > > > Could I please get a review of this 8u build change backport which adds > > --with-extra-asflags to OpenJDK 8u. At Red Hat, we need to pass certa

[8u] RFR: 8227397: Add --with-extra-asflags configure option

Hi, Could I please get a review of this 8u build change backport which adds --with-extra-asflags to OpenJDK 8u. At Red Hat, we need to pass certain assembler only flags for some builds. For example "-Wa,--generate- missing-build-notes=yes", to assembly files only. As the build system is different

Re: How to get a specific tag from Opne jdk source control.

On Sun, 2019-09-22 at 16:06 +0300, Moshe Zuisman wrote: > Hi. > I need to build open JDK jdk8u 222 > > . > I know that I can download precompiled binary distro of this version. But I > need to compile it at our site. >

Re: [11u] RFR: 8214003: Limit default test jobs based on memory size

On Fri, 2019-08-23 at 08:33 -0700, Erik Joelsson wrote: > Looks good to me. Thanks, Erik. Appreciate the review! Cheers, Severin

Re: [11u] RFR: 8211727: Adjust default concurrency settings for running tests on Sparc

On Fri, 2019-08-23 at 08:33 -0700, Erik Joelsson wrote: > Looks good to me. Thank you, Erik! Cheers, Severin

[11u] RFR: 8214003: Limit default test jobs based on memory size

Hi, Please review this backport of a reliability fix for running tests. Currently on certain machines where num_cores/2 > mem_in_gb/2 there is a risk of tests failing due to memory issues. JTREG's -concurrency setting will currently be num_cures/2 and the available memory for this might not be

[11u] RFR: 8211727: Adjust default concurrency settings for running tests on Sparc

Hi, Please review this dependency patch of a bug I'd like to backport (JDK- 8214003). It does not apply cleanly - due to JDK-8212028 missing in jdk11u[1], but the changes needed are quite trivial: 1) JTREG_TIMEOUT_FACTOR => JTREG_TIMEOUT 2)

Re: RFR: [8u] 8141570: Fix Zero interpreter build for --disable-precompiled-headers

On Thu, 2019-08-22 at 10:15 +0100, Andrew Hughes wrote: > Here it is: https://cr.openjdk.java.net/~andrew/openjdk8/8141570/ Looks good. Thanks, Severin

Re: RFR: [8u] 8141570: Fix Zero interpreter build for --disable-precompiled-headers

Hi Andrew, On Wed, 2019-08-21 at 20:33 +0100, Andrew John Hughes wrote: > This is the first of a series of four changes to support -Wreturn-type > in OpenJDK 8u. The -Wreturn-type warning catches instances where control > flow exits a non-void function without returning a value. This can >

Re: [8u] [PING?] RFR: 8222737: [TESTBUG] Allow for tier 1 like testing in OpenJDK 8u

On Mon, 2019-07-29 at 16:32 +0100, Andrew John Hughes wrote: > > On 29/07/2019 11:10, Severin Gehwolf wrote: > > On Mon, 2019-07-29 at 10:19 +0100, Andrew Dinn wrote: > > > On 26/07/2019 18:32, Andrew John Hughes wrote: > > > > On 26/07/

Re: [8u] [PING?] RFR: 8222737: [TESTBUG] Allow for tier 1 like testing in OpenJDK 8u

On Mon, 2019-07-29 at 10:19 +0100, Andrew Dinn wrote: > On 26/07/2019 18:32, Andrew John Hughes wrote: > > On 26/07/2019 16:53, Severin Gehwolf wrote: [...] > > > > > > > What exactly is being pushed > > > > here? > > > > > >

Re: [8u] [PING?] RFR: 8222737: [TESTBUG] Allow for tier 1 like testing in OpenJDK 8u

Hi Andrew, On Fri, 2019-07-26 at 14:46 +0100, Andrew John Hughes wrote: > On 25/07/2019 16:02, Severin Gehwolf wrote: > > snip... > > > > Done now. I've added fix-request comments/labels to the above bugs and > > > rebased on top of them. New jdk changeset: &g

Re: [8u] [PING?] RFR: 8222737: [TESTBUG] Allow for tier 1 like testing in OpenJDK 8u

On Fri, 2019-07-26 at 10:44 +0200, Aleksey Shipilev wrote: > On 7/25/19 5:02 PM, Severin Gehwolf wrote: > > Any more thoughts? > > I think we should go on with it. The lack of tier1 in jdk8u is a serious > impediment for backports. I > have applied all the recent patches (0

Re: [8u] [PING?] RFR: 8222737: [TESTBUG] Allow for tier 1 like testing in OpenJDK 8u

On Fri, 2019-07-26 at 10:44 +0200, Aleksey Shipilev wrote: > On 7/25/19 5:02 PM, Severin Gehwolf wrote: > > Any more thoughts? > > I think we should go on with it. The lack of tier1 in jdk8u is a serious > impediment for backports. I > have applied all the recent patches (0

Re: [8u] [PING?] RFR: 8222737: [TESTBUG] Allow for tier 1 like testing in OpenJDK 8u

On Mon, 2019-07-08 at 14:35 +0200, Severin Gehwolf wrote: > Hi Andrew, > > On Fri, 2019-06-28 at 14:45 +0100, Andrew John Hughes wrote: > > On 28/06/2019 10:52, Severin Gehwolf wrote: > > > Hi Andrew, > > > > > > On Thu, 2019-06-27 at 17:36 +0100, Andre

Re: [Ping?] RFR: 8227397: Add --with-extra-asflags configure option

future > file-specific assembler flags don't have to duplicate adding EXTRA_ASFLAGS. Fixed as suggested: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~sgehwolf/webrevs/JDK-8227397/02/webrev/ Thanks, Severin > Otherwise, good. > > Paul > > On 7/15/19, 7:27 AM, "build-dev on behalf of Se

Re: [Ping?] RFR: 8227397: Add --with-extra-asflags configure option

Anyone? On Mon, 2019-07-08 at 17:56 +0200, Severin Gehwolf wrote: > Hi, > > Could I please get a review for this patch which adds a new configure > option --with-extra-asflags? The issue at hand is that we, Red Hat, > need to pass certain extra flags to the assembler when O

Re: [8u] RFR: 8210761: libjsig is being compiled without optimization

k.java.net/~sgehwolf/webrevs/JDK-8210761/jdk8/05/webrev/ Thanks again for your help! Cheers, Severin > > Best regards > Christoph > > > -----Original Message- > > From: Severin Gehwolf > > Sent: Dienstag, 9. Juli 2019 12:09 > > To: Langer, Christoph >

Re: [8u] RFR: 8210761: libjsig is being compiled without optimization

t/~sgehwolf/webrevs/JDK-8210761/jdk8/04/webrev/ Good to go? Thanks, Severin > -Original Message- From: Langer, Christoph Sent: Donnerstag, 4. Juli 2019 14:21 To: Severin Gehwolf ; Andrew John Hughes ; jdk8u-dev Cc: build-dev Subject: RE: [8u] RFR: 8210761: libjsig is being compiled w

Re: RFR: 8227397: Add --with-extra-asflags configure option

iles in hotspot? Yes. I've only found assemly files in hotspot. Happy to add it for core libs, too, but not sure where. Thanks, Severin > On Mon, Jul 8, 2019 at 8:57 AM Severin Gehwolf wrote: > > Hi, > > > > Could I please get a review for this patch which adds a new

RFR: 8227397: Add --with-extra-asflags configure option

Hi, Could I please get a review for this patch which adds a new configure option --with-extra-asflags? The issue at hand is that we, Red Hat, need to pass certain extra flags to the assembler when OpenJDK is being compiled. -Wa,--generate-missing-build-notes=yes in our case. That's currently not

Re: [8u] RFR: 8222737: [TESTBUG] Allow for tier 1 like testing in OpenJDK 8u

Hi Andrew, On Fri, 2019-06-28 at 14:45 +0100, Andrew John Hughes wrote: > On 28/06/2019 10:52, Severin Gehwolf wrote: > > Hi Andrew, > > > > On Thu, 2019-06-27 at 17:36 +0100, Andrew John Hughes wrote: > > > On 22/05/2019 17:34, Severin Gehwolf wrote: > > >

Re: [8u] RFR: 8210761: libjsig is being compiled without optimization

ise, solaris will stay as-is. Thoughts? OK to push? Thanks, Severin > Best regards > Christoph > > > > -Original Message- > > From: Severin Gehwolf > > Sent: Donnerstag, 4. Juli 2019 11:39 > > To: Langer, Christoph ; Andrew John Hughes > >

Re: [8u] RFR: 8210761: libjsig is being compiled without optimization

Hi Christoph, On Wed, 2019-06-26 at 13:11 +, Langer, Christoph wrote: > > Here you go: > > http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~sgehwolf/webrevs/JDK- > > 8210761/jdk8/02/webrev/ > > > > I cannot really test on bsd, solaris or aix, though :( Appreciate any > > testers for those platforms. > > I

Re: [8u] RFR: 8222737: [TESTBUG] Allow for tier 1 like testing in OpenJDK 8u

Hi Andrew, On Thu, 2019-06-27 at 17:36 +0100, Andrew John Hughes wrote: > > On 22/05/2019 17:34, Severin Gehwolf wrote: > > Hi, > > > > Could I please get reviews for this minimal implementation of a tier1- > > like test set for JDK 8u? The implementation is r

  1   2   3   4   >