Thanks .. yes .. not so much need to test the reversion to the previous
known good state.
-phil.
On 11/19/18, 1:29 PM, Thomas Stüfe wrote:
Thanks guys. I pushed.
..Thomas
On Mon, Nov 19, 2018 at 10:21 PM David Holmes wrote:
On 20/11/2018 7:17 am, Thomas Stüfe wrote:
p.s. does this need
Was this fix run through jdk-submit ?
https://wiki.openjdk.java.net/display/Build/Submit+Repo
-phil.
On 11/19/18, 12:36 PM, David Holmes wrote:
Volker & reviewers,
This breaks the Solaris build:
jib > Undefinedfirst referenced
jib > symbol in file
jib >
Hi Alexey,
I don’t have an account on JBS as I’m not an author yet, my OCA has just been
processed. Would it be possible for someone with an author status to create an
issue?
Regards,
Ali
> On 19 Nov 2018, at 12:12, Alexey Ivanov wrote:
>
> Hi Ali,
>
> The fix looks good to me provided it
Thanks guys. I pushed.
..Thomas
On Mon, Nov 19, 2018 at 10:21 PM David Holmes wrote:
>
> On 20/11/2018 7:17 am, Thomas Stüfe wrote:
> > p.s. does this need a jdk-submit run?
>
> No. Please push. If there are any issues I'll follow up.
>
> Thanks,
> David
>
> > I'm about to call it a day, and
Hi,
Webrev updated in place:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~rriggs/webrev-props-only-raw
On 11/16/2018 06:36 PM, Mandy Chung wrote:
Hi Roger,
Looking good. I have a few small comments:
I assume VM.saveAndRemoveProperties will be a separate cleanup.
SystemProps::cmdProperties adds the
> On Nov 19, 2018, at 2:04 AM, Kim Barrett wrote:
>
>> On Nov 19, 2018, at 1:31 AM, David Holmes wrote:
>> I think it is important that all the port owners buy into this.
>
> At least one port (aix_ppc) presently seems to have no way to support this
> change, because
> the compiler being used
On Mon, Nov 19, 2018 at 9:00 AM Kim Barrett wrote:
>
> > On Nov 19, 2018, at 2:04 AM, Kim Barrett wrote:
> >
> >> On Nov 19, 2018, at 1:31 AM, David Holmes wrote:
> >> I think it is important that all the port owners buy into this.
> >
> > At least one port (aix_ppc) presently seems to have no
Hi,
we're seeing a few rare, intermittent build failures on some older
machines due missing explicit dependencies on some modules (such as
java.xml). While more fine-grained option exists, we might as well
depend on exploded-image to ensure that microbenchmarks are always free
to compile
Hi Ali,
The fix looks good to me provided it resolves your problem.
I am not a reviewer so you'll have to get OK from reviewers, likely from
build-dev and from core-libs.
Have you submitted the issue in JBS?
You have to sign OCA to be able to contribute to OpenJDK:
On 2018-11-19 12:10, Claes Redestad wrote:
Hi,
we're seeing a few rare, intermittent build failures on some older
machines due missing explicit dependencies on some modules (such as
java.xml). While more fine-grained option exists, we might as well
depend on exploded-image to ensure that
Hi Ali,
From a build perspective this change looks OK. I'm not aware of the
finer details on the OnLoad mechanism, like what calling convention is
to be used. So maybe this is a no-go from that view.
I'm cc:ing servicability so they can have a look at it.
/Magnus
On 2018-11-18 13:07, Ali
On 2018-11-16 19:08, Volker Simonis wrote:
Hi,
can I please have a review for the following trivial fix:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~simonis/webrevs/2018/8214007/
https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8214007
Looks good to me.
(But this mess, oh this mess...)
/Magnus
AWT supports some
On 2018-11-16 21:36, Erik Joelsson wrote:
Thanks, looks good to me now.
And to me.
Looks like a nice cleanup in general!
/Magnus
/Erik
On 2018-11-16 12:02, Roger Riggs wrote:
Hi Erik,
Yes, that is removed.
Webrev updated in place.
Thanks, Roger
+1
Thanks Claes!
David
On 19/11/2018 10:14 pm, Magnus Ihse Bursie wrote:
On 2018-11-19 12:10, Claes Redestad wrote:
Hi,
we're seeing a few rare, intermittent build failures on some older
machines due missing explicit dependencies on some modules (such as
java.xml). While more fine-grained
On 19/11/2018 5:04 pm, Kim Barrett wrote:
On Nov 19, 2018, at 1:31 AM, David Holmes wrote:
Hi Kim,
On 16/11/2018 12:31 pm, Kim Barrett wrote:
On Oct 3, 2018, at 3:13 PM, Kim Barrett wrote:
I've submitted a JEP for
(1) enabling the use of C++14 Language Features when building the JDK,
(2)
I can sponsor it.
/Erik
On 2018-11-17 09:55, Sergey wrote:
Hi David,
s/repositorys/repositories/
Thanks,
David
I've fixed that one and double checked the rest of the diff.
Hope it is fine now.
That also would be great if anyone could sponsor that patch.
Thanks,
Sergei
diff
Done: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8214062
/Erik
On 2018-11-19 08:18, Erik Joelsson wrote:
I can sponsor it.
/Erik
On 2018-11-17 09:55, Sergey wrote:
Hi David,
s/repositorys/repositories/
Thanks,
David
I've fixed that one and double checked the rest of the diff.
Erik,
Thanks for the sponsorship!
Regards,
Su -
On Mon, Nov 19, 2018, 17:52 Erik Joelsson Done: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8214062
>
> /Erik
>
> On 2018-11-19 08:18, Erik Joelsson wrote:
> > I can sponsor it.
> >
> > /Erik
>
FWIW I am very much in favor of (1) and if aesthetics are a problem in
awt_GraphicsEnv.c, a "HAVE_XRANDR" define would make things a bit
prettier...
just my 2c.
On Mon, Nov 19, 2018 at 6:58 PM Volker Simonis wrote:
>
> Hi Phil,
>
> I'd like to kindly ask you to suggest how we can proceed with
Volker & reviewers,
This breaks the Solaris build:
jib > Undefined first referenced
jib > symbolin file
jib > DTrace_PrintFunction
Hi Phil,
I'd like to kindly ask you to suggest how we can proceed with this issue.
As I wrote before, Xrandr is not officially supported on AIX and there
are no official packages available for it. There are some OpenSource
sites for AIX which provide Xrandr, but they are all not compatible
with
> On Nov 19, 2018, at 7:56 AM, David Holmes wrote:
>
> On 19/11/2018 5:04 pm, Kim Barrett wrote:
>>> On Nov 19, 2018, at 1:31 AM, David Holmes wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Kim,
>>>
>>> On 16/11/2018 12:31 pm, Kim Barrett wrote:
>>>
>>> This doesn't strike me as a JEP that actually integrates anything.
Hi Thomas,
Yes please back this out. I don't think Volker or the reviewers are
likely online at the moment. I'm also not in the office yet but will
review the backout ASAP.
Thanks,
David
On 20/11/2018 6:52 am, Thomas Stüfe wrote:
Hi David, Volker,
should I just quickly remove the fix?
..
On 20/11/2018 6:39 am, Kim Barrett wrote:
On Nov 19, 2018, at 7:56 AM, David Holmes wrote:
On 19/11/2018 5:04 pm, Kim Barrett wrote:
On Nov 19, 2018, at 1:31 AM, David Holmes wrote:
Hi Kim,
On 16/11/2018 12:31 pm, Kim Barrett wrote:
This doesn't strike me as a JEP that actually integrates
Hi all,
may I please have a quick review. We want to backout 8214007 for now
since it breaks Solaris.
https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8214075
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~stuefe/webrevs/8214075-backout-8214007/webrev.00/webrev/
Thanks, Thomas
On 11/19/18 10:13 PM, Thomas Stüfe wrote:
> may I please have a quick review. We want to backout 8214007 for now
> since it breaks Solaris.
>
> https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8214075
>
> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~stuefe/webrevs/8214075-backout-8214007/webrev.00/webrev/
Looks good,
p.s. does this need a jdk-submit run?
I'm about to call it a day, and since jdk-submit takes 4-6 hours, that
would mean someone else would have to push the fix.
..Thomas
On Mon, Nov 19, 2018 at 10:13 PM Thomas Stüfe wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> may I please have a quick review. We want to backout
Looks good and trivial! Thanks for doing this Thomas.
David
On 20/11/2018 7:13 am, Thomas Stüfe wrote:
Hi all,
may I please have a quick review. We want to backout 8214007 for now
since it breaks Solaris.
https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8214075
I don't think it needs jdk-submit, since it trivially restores the recent
repository state, and
issue has no dependencies.
-Aleksey
On 11/19/18 10:17 PM, Thomas Stüfe wrote:
> p.s. does this need a jdk-submit run?
>
> I'm about to call it a day, and since jdk-submit takes 4-6 hours, that
>
On 20/11/2018 7:17 am, Thomas Stüfe wrote:
p.s. does this need a jdk-submit run?
No. Please push. If there are any issues I'll follow up.
Thanks,
David
I'm about to call it a day, and since jdk-submit takes 4-6 hours, that
would mean someone else would have to push the fix.
..Thomas
On
30 matches
Mail list logo
