Oh and notice that if you try to build it yourself, use a version of LLVM < 3.5. In 3.5, C++11 is used/required, and OpenJDK doesn't support C++11 yet. (are there any plans about this?) I'd recommend LLVM 3.4.2.
Roman Am Donnerstag, den 08.01.2015 um 11:03 +0100 schrieb Erik Joelsson: > Hello Roman, > > This addition looks good to me. > > Thinking about what the others said, it might be inconvenient to have > all this be pushed to different forests. I tried applying all the > changes to jdk9/hs-rt, but I can't seem to build zeroshark.. Did you > have more hotspot changes to be able to finish the build? > > My failure is: > > ciTypeFlow.o > /localhome/hg/jdk9-hs-rt/hotspot/src/share/vm/ci/ciTypeFlow.cpp > In file included from > /localhome/hg/jdk9-hs-rt/hotspot/src/share/vm/opto/regmask.hpp:29:0, > from > /localhome/hg/jdk9-hs-rt/hotspot/src/share/vm/opto/compile.hpp:40, > from > /localhome/hg/jdk9-hs-rt/hotspot/src/share/vm/ci/ciTypeFlow.cpp:38: > /localhome/hg/jdk9-hs-rt/hotspot/src/share/vm/opto/optoreg.hpp:40:39: > fatal error: adfiles/adGlobals_zero.hpp: No such file or directory > > From what I can see, adfiles are not generated for zero or zeroshark > builds, so the include should probably be removed. > > Would you still like me to push what you currently have to hs-rt? > > /Erik > > On 2015-01-07 21:21, Roman Kennke wrote: > > Hi Erik, > > > > When I built Zero and Shark on my Raspberry Pi, I noticed another > > problem when copying jvm.cfg into the right places. I fixed it in a > > similar way as I did for the SA stuff: > > > > http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~rkennke/shark-build-jdk/webrev.02/ > > > > I think that should be all for now. > > > > Please push that into JDK9 if you think that's fine. > > > > Best regards, > > Roman > > > > Am Mittwoch, den 07.01.2015 um 17:49 +0100 schrieb Erik Joelsson: > >> On 2015-01-07 17:29, Roman Kennke wrote: > >>> Am Mittwoch, den 07.01.2015 um 17:16 +0100 schrieb Erik Joelsson: > >>>> On 2015-01-07 17:11, Roman Kennke wrote: > >>>>> Hi Erik, > >>>>> > >>>>> Do you have a bug for this? > >>>>> No. > >>>>> > >>>>> I haven't pushed any changes to JDK in a while. Is it possible in the > >>>>> meantime for me to create my own bugs? Otherwise, please file one for > >>>>> me :-) > >>>> You should be able to log in to https://bugs.openjdk.java.net and create > >>>> bugs since you have an OpenJDK identity. > >>> Done: > >>> > >>> https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8068598 > >>> > >>> While I'm at it, is it possible for me to push my own changes (except > >>> hotspot of course)? If yes, what needs to be done for regenerating the > >>> configure files? Simply run autogen.sh in common/autoconf with whatever > >>> version of autotools I have? Or doesn't it make sense at all b/c you > >>> need to regenerate your closed scripts? > >> It requires you to run common/autogen.sh yes, and that will require you > >> to have autoconf 2.69 installed. But since we also need to regenerate > >> the closed version, I can take care of the push for you. Will do it > >> tomorrow if that's ok? > >> > >> /Erik > >>> Roman > >>> > > >
