On 11/12/2015 2:15 PM, Alexander Smundak wrote:
I have jcheck enabled, so I am surprised that the absence of the
Reviewed-by: field was not flagged. Anyways, here's the new set:
Not sure what is going on with your jcheck setup but the formatting is
still wrong:
- the changeset "user" must be OpenJDK username not email address
- reviewers must be OpenJDK user names not email addresses
- contributed-by attribution should be simple email address or the
following is also allowed:
Andrew Hughes <gnu.and...@redhat.com>
Sorry.
David
-----
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~asmundak/8073139/hotspot/webrev.04
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~asmundak/8073139/jdk/webrev.04
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~asmundak/8073139/root/webrev.04
Note that I don't have access to the big-endian PowerPC64. The
original patch was verified by goetz.lindenma...@sap.com, but it has
changed since. Goetz, can you verify that the new patch still works?
Sasha
On Wed, Dec 9, 2015 at 8:59 PM, David Holmes <david.hol...@oracle.com> wrote:
On 10/12/2015 4:16 AM, Alexander Smundak wrote:
I am confused -- is there anything you want me to change in the existing
set:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~asmundak/8073139/hotspot/webrev.03
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~asmundak/8073139/jdk/webrev.03
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~asmundak/8073139/root/webrev.03
Yes they need to be created using the correct, jcheck[1] compliant, commit
messages:
http://openjdk.java.net/guide/producingChangeset.html
Mainly Reviewers seem to be missing - but I'm also not sure other details
are jcheck compliant.
Thanks,
David
[1] http://openjdk.java.net/projects/code-tools/jcheck/
Sasha
On Tue, Dec 8, 2015 at 7:10 PM, David Holmes <david.hol...@oracle.com>
wrote:
I can sponsor for you Sasha. Just email me the changeset, or a link
thereto.
Thanks,
David
On 9/12/2015 3:44 AM, Alexander Smundak wrote:
Thank you for the review.
If everyone involved is satisfied with the patch, I need a sponsor.
Sasha
On Mon, Dec 7, 2015 at 8:46 PM, David Holmes <david.hol...@oracle.com>
wrote:
On 8/12/2015 1:44 PM, Alexander Smundak wrote:
It is achievable by adding a small ppc-specific check to the
common/autoconf/platform.m4:
@@ -282,6 +282,8 @@
elif test "x$OPENJDK_TARGET_OS" != xmacosx && test
"x$OPENJDK_TARGET_CPU" = xx86_64; then
# On all platforms except MacOSX replace x86_64 with amd64.
OPENJDK_TARGET_CPU_LEGACY="amd64"
+ elif test "x$OPENJDK_TARGET_CPU" = xppc64le; then
+ OPENJDK_TARGET_CPU_LEGACY="ppc64"
fi
AC_SUBST(OPENJDK_TARGET_CPU_LEGACY)
However, there is a code in make/Images.gmk using
OPENJDK_TARGET_CPU_LEGACY
$(call info-file-item, "OS_ARCH", "$(OPENJDK_TARGET_CPU_LEGACY)")
so that the 'release' file in the image directory will now have
JAVA_VERSION="9"
JAVA_FULL_VERSION="9-internal+0-2015-12-07-190811.asmundak.hs-rt"
OS_NAME="Linux"
OS_VERSION="2.6"
OS_ARCH="ppc64"
^^^^^^^^
SOURCE=..,
instead of "ppc64le".
If someone can tell me which other variable I should use to achieve
that without changing the contents of the 'release' file on other
platforms, I'll be grateful.
Okay never mind - and thanks for looking into this. I see now this is
set
via:
./autoconf/flags.m4: COMMON_CCXXFLAGS_JDK="$COMMON_CCXXFLAGS_JDK
-DARCH='\"$OPENJDK_TARGET_CPU_LEGACY\"' -D$OPENJDK_TARGET_CPU_LEGACY"
so there is no way to add a second value without introducing some
additional
variable. At the hotspot level it could be handled differently if we
had
a
platform_ppc64le file, as it could just be added to the SYSDEFS.
Thanks,
David
