On 7/05/2018 6:20 PM, Aleksey Shipilev wrote:
On 05/06/2018 09:20 AM, David Holmes wrote:
On 5/05/2018 9:26 PM, Aleksey Shipilev wrote:
RFE:
https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8202683
Fix:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~shade/8202683/webrev.01/
Minimal VM is targeted to 32-bit
2018/5/3 13:16:11 +0100, volker.simo...@gmail.com:
> On Thu, May 3, 2018 at 12:21 PM, magnus.ihse.bur...@oracle.com wrote:
>> ...
>>
>> Until a consensus of a better solution for hosting the generated
>> documentation is reached, I'd like to avoid changing the build code. That
>> will just open
On 05/06/2018 09:20 AM, David Holmes wrote:
> On 5/05/2018 9:26 PM, Aleksey Shipilev wrote:
>> RFE:
>> https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8202683
>>
>> Fix:
>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~shade/8202683/webrev.01/
>>
>> Minimal VM is targeted to 32-bit only, but hear me out. Recent
On 6 May 2018 at 18:35, B. Blaser wrote:
> On 5 May 2018 at 22:26, Kim Barrett wrote:
>>> On May 5, 2018, at 8:03 AM, B. Blaser wrote:
>>>
>>> On 4 May 2018 at 17:42, Alan Bateman wrote:
On 04/05/2018
On 2018-05-07 08:40, Erik Joelsson wrote:
Looks good to me.
Note for future, I would like it even more if we got rid of the
pre-defined jvm.cfg altogether and just always generated it. The build
itself shouldn't be dictating artificial limitations on build
parameters. If we want to enforce
Yes, sure, I'm working on a different fix in the same area now anyway so
can sneak this fix in there. Will get done this week.
/Erik
On 2018-05-07 07:37, Thomas Stüfe wrote:
Hi Erik,
since your proposal worked, will you do a fix?
Thanks, Thomas
On Fri, May 4, 2018 at 8:30 AM, Thomas Stüfe
Hi Erik,
since your proposal worked, will you do a fix?
Thanks, Thomas
On Fri, May 4, 2018 at 8:30 AM, Thomas Stüfe wrote:
> Hi Erik,
>
> that worked on both machines for all builds.
>
> Thanks, Thomas
>
> On Thu, May 3, 2018 at 10:13 PM, Erik Joelsson
Looks good to me.
Note for future, I would like it even more if we got rid of the
pre-defined jvm.cfg altogether and just always generated it. The build
itself shouldn't be dictating artificial limitations on build
parameters. If we want to enforce limitations those should be explicit
On 7 May 2018 at 14:19, B. Blaser wrote:
> On 6 May 2018 at 18:35, B. Blaser wrote:
>> On 5 May 2018 at 22:26, Kim Barrett wrote:
On May 5, 2018, at 8:03 AM, B. Blaser wrote:
On 4 May 2018 at 17:42,
Great, thanks!
On Mon, May 7, 2018 at 5:41 PM, Erik Joelsson wrote:
> Yes, sure, I'm working on a different fix in the same area now anyway so can
> sneak this fix in there. Will get done this week.
>
> /Erik
>
>
>
> On 2018-05-07 07:37, Thomas Stüfe wrote:
>>
>> Hi
Build change looks good.
/Erik
On 2018-05-07 15:35, Igor Ignatyev wrote:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~iignatyev/8199370/webrev.00/index.html
45710 lines changed: 45710 ins; 0 del; 0 mod;
Hi all,
could you please review the patch which open sources GC tests from vm testbase?
it introduces
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~iignatyev/8199370/webrev.00/index.html
> 45710 lines changed: 45710 ins; 0 del; 0 mod;
Hi all,
could you please review the patch which open sources GC tests from vm testbase?
it introduces the following test groups:
- vmTestbase_vm_g1classunloading
-
With the new VS2017 toolchain Microsoft has changed how the C++
libraries work. In addition to the old msvcr* and msvcp* dll files, we
now have a big lot of UCRT dlls as well. These files are also
redistributable but are found in the Windows Kit rather than the Visual
Studio installation. On
On 8/05/2018 1:40 AM, Erik Joelsson wrote:
Looks good to me.
Note for future, I would like it even more if we got rid of the
pre-defined jvm.cfg altogether and just always generated it. The build
That was supposed to be happening ... see (non-public sorry)
JDK-8179985. Don't know what the
14 matches
Mail list logo