Please review the implementation for JEP JDK-8204247
(https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8204247). The goal of the JEP
is to include a default CDS archive in JDK 12 binary distribution
(downloadable from http://jdk.java.net/12/). The default CDS archive is
generated using the default
Done: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8210008
> On Aug 23, 2018, at 4:56 PM, Erik Joelsson wrote:
>
As I was about to push this, I realize there was a minor nit with the
way in which build.xml files found some classes inside the generated
.idea folder - that is, the path to this folder was defined in a
relative way from the location of the script file.
A more robust way to get there is to
> On Aug 27, 2018, at 2:30 AM, Magnus Ihse Bursie
> wrote:
>
> On 2018-08-23 17:13, Bob Vandette wrote:
>> As a follow-on to the previous thread "ARM port consolidation” [1],
>> please review and comment on this newly filed JEP that removes
>> one of the two AArch64 ports from the JDK.
>>
On 27 August 2018 at 17:00, Andrew Haley wrote:
> On 08/27/2018 09:49 AM, Ningsheng Jian wrote:
>> Yes, some benchmark data is unstable. We did analyze the arm64 and
>> aarch64 codegen difference with microbenchmarks. AArch64 backend
>> generates better code on most cases, and I believe that we
On 08/27/2018 09:49 AM, Ningsheng Jian wrote:
> Yes, some benchmark data is unstable. We did analyze the arm64 and
> aarch64 codegen difference with microbenchmarks. AArch64 backend
> generates better code on most cases, and I believe that we have
> addressed those minor worse cases we found. E.g.
Hi,
On 27 August 2018 at 16:13, Andrew Haley wrote:
> On 08/27/2018 07:30 AM, Magnus Ihse Bursie wrote:
>> One question: I remember there were some guys from Linaro who compared
>> aarch64 vs arm64 in microbenchmarks, and found that while aarch64 had
>> the superior performance most of the time,
On 08/27/2018 07:30 AM, Magnus Ihse Bursie wrote:
> One question: I remember there were some guys from Linaro who compared
> aarch64 vs arm64 in microbenchmarks, and found that while aarch64 had
> the superior performance most of the time, there were some benchmarks
> where arm64 was fastest.
>
On 2018-08-23 17:13, Bob Vandette wrote:
As a follow-on to the previous thread "ARM port consolidation” [1],
please review and comment on this newly filed JEP that removes
one of the two AArch64 ports from the JDK.
JEP:
https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8209093
Looks good! (Or as we
