I think the jdk changes with ppc64le as CPU make sense.
Note that the changes to SoundDefs.h and SoundLibraries.gmk will be
obsolete with JDK-8072665 which is currently in the client forest.
/Erik
On 2015-02-23 15:16, Andrew Hughes wrote:
----- Original Message -----
Apologies to Tiago as there were two webrevs and one got stripped from
the email. Here's Tiago's webrev:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~dholmes/rh1191652-jdk9/webrev.00/
David
On 19/02/2015 2:22 PM, David Holmes wrote:
Now hosted at:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~dholmes/ahughes-rh1191652-jdk9-webrev/
David
On 19/02/2015 1:35 PM, David Holmes wrote:
Hi Tiago,
Please email me the tar files and I will host it for you.
Thanks,
David
On 19/02/2015 1:02 PM, Tiago Sturmer Daitx wrote:
On Wed, 2015-02-18 at 07:33 -0500, Andrew Hughes wrote:
I now have these changes working on 8u31:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~andrew/rh1191652/root
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~andrew/rh1191652/jdk
I can re-base these onto whichever OpenJDK 9 tree is appropriate and
push when
reviewed under the same bug as used for the HotSpot side.
Concurrently to Andrew I also worked on a fix for JDK9 and came up with
a somewhat different approach (based on jdk9/dev):
http://tdaitx.github.com/openjdk-webrev/rh1191652-jdk9/webrev.00/hotspot/
http://tdaitx.github.com/openjdk-webrev/rh1191652-jdk9/webrev.00/root
To make it easy I already rebased Andrew's JDK8u31 patches to jdk9/dev
(due to that the webrev ended up with my username).
http://tdaitx.github.com/openjdk-webrev/rh1191652-jdk9/ahughes-webrev.00/hotspot/
http://tdaitx.github.com/openjdk-webrev/rh1191652-jdk9/ahughes-webrev.00/jdk
http://tdaitx.github.com/openjdk-webrev/rh1191652-jdk9/ahughes-webrev.00/root
I tested both approaches by building Hadoop (which triggered some
interesting bugs on various projects due to Jigsaw).
Sorry for the github links, but I don't have an account at
cr.openjdk.java.net that I can use. I can provide tar files if anyone is
willing to host those webrevs.
Regards,
Tiago Daitx
Where do we go with this next?
I'm still in favour of my own patches on the JDK side, as I think hiding the
architecture there is just asking for problems further down the line.
