Re: RFR(M): 8152172: PPC64: Support AES intrinsics

2016-03-30 Thread Volker Simonis
Hi everybody, here finally comes the updated version of Hiroshi's change (sorry for the delay): http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~simonis/webrevs/2016/8152172.hs/ http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~simonis/webrevs/2016/8152172.jdk/ With regard to the previous version it contains three small updates: - change

Re: RFR(M): 8152172: PPC64: Support AES intrinsics

2016-03-30 Thread Vladimir Kozlov
Looks good. I will run hotspot compiler pre-integration testing and let you know results. Thanks, Vladimir On 3/30/16 3:29 AM, Volker Simonis wrote: Hi everybody, here finally comes the updated version of Hiroshi's change (sorry for the delay): http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~simonis/webrevs/201

Re: RFR(M): 8152172: PPC64: Support AES intrinsics

2016-03-30 Thread Vladimir Kozlov
BTW, I am changing UseAES check in stubs generation with UseAESIntrinsics check as we do for other intrinsics. Thanks, Vladimir On 3/30/16 9:39 AM, Vladimir Kozlov wrote: Looks good. I will run hotspot compiler pre-integration testing and let you know results. Thanks, Vladimir On 3/30/16 3:

Re: RFR(M): 8152172: PPC64: Support AES intrinsics

2016-03-30 Thread Anthony Scarpino
The jdk part looks good. Tony On 03/30/2016 03:29 AM, Volker Simonis wrote: Hi everybody, here finally comes the updated version of Hiroshi's change (sorry for the delay): http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~simonis/webrevs/2016/8152172.hs/ http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~simonis/webrevs/2016/8152172.jdk

Re: JDK 9 RFR of JDK-8151763; Use more informative format for problem list

2016-03-30 Thread Joseph D. Darcy
Hi Mandy, Hopefully the third time will be the charm for this changeset after your correction to the commented-out test: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~darcy/8151763.2 I aligned the bug number in column 64 unless the test name took more characters. (This isn't as evident in the webrev since

Re: JDK 9 RFR of JDK-8151763; Use more informative format for problem list

2016-03-30 Thread Sergey Bylokhov
The fix looks fine to me. can you please clarify what "enabling better reporting" from the bug description means? Where this information will be reported? On 31.03.16 2:48, Joseph D. Darcy wrote: Hi Mandy, Hopefully the third time will be the charm for this changeset after your correction to

Re: JDK 9 RFR of JDK-8151763; Use more informative format for problem list

2016-03-30 Thread Joseph D. Darcy
Hi Sergey, The thinking is the reformatted file, with the bug on the same line as the test, will allow in the future better reporting and analysis of problem list entries with information from the bug database. Thanks for the review; HTH, -Joe On 3/30/2016 5:02 PM, Sergey Bylokhov wrote: Th

Re: JDK 9 RFR of JDK-8151763; Use more informative format for problem list

2016-03-30 Thread Mandy Chung
> On Mar 30, 2016, at 4:48 PM, Joseph D. Darcy wrote: > > Hi Mandy, > > Hopefully the third time will be the charm for this changeset after your > correction to the commented-out test: > >http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~darcy/8151763.2 > > I aligned the bug number in column 64 unless the tes

Re: JDK 9 RFR of JDK-8151763; Use more informative format for problem list

2016-03-30 Thread joe darcy
On 3/30/2016 5:34 PM, Mandy Chung wrote: On Mar 30, 2016, at 4:48 PM, Joseph D. Darcy wrote: Hi Mandy, Hopefully the third time will be the charm for this changeset after your correction to the commented-out test: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~darcy/8151763.2 I aligned the bug number in c

Re: JDK 9 RFR of JDK-8151763; Use more informative format for problem list

2016-03-30 Thread Mandy Chung
> On Mar 30, 2016, at 6:15 PM, joe darcy wrote: > > Pushed after a de-tabbification and verifying the set of tests to run was the > same before and after the update. It looks good. Mandy