Re: Official and community supported build platforms for JDK 8 and 9

2014-12-02 Thread Martijn Verburg
That's a no for now then - in that case - do folks just want us firing any updates we are aware of to this mailing list? Cheers, Martijn On 1 December 2014 at 19:02, Iris Clark iris.cl...@oracle.com wrote: Hi, Martijn. Likewise - is it possible to get edit access?

Re: Adding Microbenchmarks to the JDK forest/trees (JEP-230)

2014-12-02 Thread roger riggs
Hi Staffan, An earlier issue was keeping tests in sync with the code under test, hence the use of test directories within each repository. I think a structure in which the benchmarks for some function and the function itself are in the same repository that is easier to understand and maintain.

Re: Official and community supported build platforms for JDK 8 and 9

2014-12-02 Thread Magnus Ihse Bursie
On 2014-12-02 14:43, Martijn Verburg wrote: That's a no for now then - in that case - do folks just want us firing any updates we are aware of to this mailing list? Yes, please do. I am aware that I have a backlog of already mailed additions. I'll try to address them as soon as time permits.

Re: Adding Microbenchmarks to the JDK forest/trees (JEP-230)

2014-12-02 Thread mark . reinhold
2014/12/1 4:08 -0800, staffan.frib...@oracle.com: Hopefully this is the right list for this discussion. This change is going to affect many more people than just those interested in the build. Suggest you float this on jdk9-dev. - Mark

Re: Official and community supported build platforms for JDK 8 and 9

2014-12-02 Thread Martijn Verburg
Thanks Magnus, appreciate it! Cheers, Martijn On 2 December 2014 at 15:42, Magnus Ihse Bursie magnus.ihse.bur...@oracle.com wrote: On 2014-12-02 14:43, Martijn Verburg wrote: That's a no for now then - in that case - do folks just want us firing any updates we are aware of to this mailing

Re: Adding Microbenchmarks to the JDK forest/trees (JEP-230)

2014-12-02 Thread Staffan Friberg
Hi, (Adding the jdk9-dev list to increase the visibility of the discussion) With the multiple sub-repository commit mechanism improved I believe this might be less of an issue. JPRT can push JDK and HS changes at together and the same functionality should be possible to use for this as well.

build warnings

2014-12-02 Thread Jonathan Gibbons
Build folk, The build has always generated warnings (sigh!) but right now, the warnings look scarier than usual. In particular, when the build terminates, I get a couple of screenfuls of messages like this:

Re: Adding Microbenchmarks to the JDK forest/trees (JEP-230)

2014-12-02 Thread Staffan Friberg
Hi Chris, Agree, there is no major reason this needs to be a new repository, as I mentioned in the 3 options below it would work well without it. The main thing I want to achieve is that the benchmarks are located on the top level. The suite will contain benchmarks for all parts of the JDK so

Re: Adding Microbenchmarks to the JDK forest/trees (JEP-230)

2014-12-02 Thread Jonathan Gibbons
Staffan, I would also ask how many files are eventually likely to be involved. If it's tens of files up to low hundreds, then a top level dir makes sense. If it's tens of thousands of files, then a separate repo makes more sense. -- Jon On 12/02/2014 02:08 PM, Staffan Friberg wrote: Hi

Re: Adding Microbenchmarks to the JDK forest/trees (JEP-230)

2014-12-02 Thread Staffan Friberg
Hi Jon, As part of the initial set of benchmarks we hope to add as part of this JEP I'm guessing it will be around 200-300 files. This would grow overtime, but I believe we won't see tens of thousands of files, it is more likely it will be something like a 1000 files. //Staffan On

Re: Adding Microbenchmarks to the JDK forest/trees (JEP-230)

2014-12-02 Thread Jonathan Gibbons
Staffan, That seems to put it on the low end for reasonably being its own repo, if you wanted that, at least, as indicated by the numbers. Here's the file counts for where we are now corba 1192 hotspot 4761 jaxp 2883 jaxws 3748 jdk 22776 langtools 6785 -- Jon On 12/02/2014 02:27 PM,

Re: Adding Microbenchmarks to the JDK forest/trees (JEP-230)

2014-12-02 Thread Christian Thalinger
On Dec 2, 2014, at 2:40 PM, Jonathan Gibbons jonathan.gibb...@oracle.com wrote: Staffan, That seems to put it on the low end for reasonably being its own repo, if you wanted that, at least, as indicated by the numbers. Do we really want more repositories? Here's the file counts

Re: Adding Microbenchmarks to the JDK forest/trees (JEP-230)

2014-12-02 Thread Jonathan Gibbons
On 12/02/2014 02:45 PM, Christian Thalinger wrote: On Dec 2, 2014, at 2:40 PM, Jonathan Gibbonsjonathan.gibb...@oracle.com wrote: Staffan, That seems to put it on the low end for reasonably being its own repo, if you wanted that, at least, as indicated by the numbers. Do we really want

Re: Adding Microbenchmarks to the JDK forest/trees (JEP-230)

2014-12-02 Thread Martin Buchholz
On Tue, Dec 2, 2014 at 2:48 PM, Jonathan Gibbons jonathan.gibb...@oracle.com wrote: Do we really want more repositories? Conversely, do we really want bigger repositories? :-) Yes, we want bigger repositories, not more repositories. Put the benchmarks into the existing repo test

Confirming JDK 8 GA version

2014-12-02 Thread Medi Montaseri
and I see openjdk version 1.8.0-20141202 OpenJDK Runtime Environment (build 1.8.0-20141202-HDS-174701) OpenJDK 64-Bit Server VM (build 25.0-b70, mixed mode) Q- Why am I seeing build 25.0-b70 ? Does this b70 has anything to do with above jdk8-b132 ? Thanks Medi

Re: Confirming JDK 8 GA version

2014-12-02 Thread David Holmes
and build everything and then run java -version and I see openjdk version 1.8.0-20141202 OpenJDK Runtime Environment (build 1.8.0-20141202-HDS-174701) OpenJDK 64-Bit Server VM (build 25.0-b70, mixed mode) Q- Why am I seeing build 25.0-b70 ? Does this b70 has anything to do with above jdk8-b132