Ah it was run without spec before. Looks good then.
/Erik
On 2018-04-10 14:31, Magnus Ihse Bursie wrote:
On 2018-04-10 23:24, Erik Joelsson wrote:
Hello,
Nice feature!
Init.gmk: 229 were -> was
Fixed without new webrev.
Otherwise looks good.
Out of curiosity, was there a reason to
On 2018-04-10 23:24, Erik Joelsson wrote:
Hello,
Nice feature!
Init.gmk: 229 were -> was
Fixed without new webrev.
Otherwise looks good.
Out of curiosity, was there a reason to move the log parsing macros
outside of has-spec block? It doesn't look like you changed where you
call these
Hello,
Nice feature!
Init.gmk: 229 were -> was
Otherwise looks good.
Out of curiosity, was there a reason to move the log parsing macros
outside of has-spec block? It doesn't look like you changed where you
call these macros from.
/Erik
On 2018-04-10 13:54, Magnus Ihse Bursie wrote:
Hi Magnus,
Thanks a lot for implementing this! I tested this with
--with-log=info,report=none, and it's exactly what I want in my config
script ;)
Thanks,
StefanK
On 2018-04-10 22:54, Magnus Ihse Bursie wrote:
From the bug report:
"The compile errors you get from HotSpot are quite large,
From the bug report:
"The compile errors you get from HotSpot are quite large, and usually
don't get entirely printed in PrintFailureReports. This has the effect
that the goto mode to find the compilation error is to scroll past
PrintFailureReports to get to the complete error message.
It
