On 03/08/2013 12:26 PM, Phil Race wrote:
> If I understand correctly, this removes the directory containing
> the JDK's copy of giflib sources from the set of locations to be
> compiled etc, and replaces it with just a link line pointer to use
> "libgif" which is then expected to be on the default
I responded in another thread (wasn't aware of this one, sorry), there
is an alternate to completely disabling -Werror.
On 3/8/2013 7:58 AM, Chris Hegarty wrote:
On 08/03/2013 15:49, Mike Duigou wrote:
Looks fine to me.
Thanks Mike.
> Do we have an issue open for restoring warnings to th
If I understand correctly, this removes the directory containing
the JDK's copy of giflib sources from the set of locations to be
compiled etc, and replaces it with just a link line pointer to use
"libgif" which is then expected to be on the default linker path,
ie in /usr/lib.
I think this is fi
On 03/08/2013 08:40 AM, Jonathan Gibbons wrote:
On 03/08/2013 08:09 AM, Mike Duigou wrote:
On Mar 8 2013, at 07:56 , Alan Bateman wrote:
On 08/03/2013 15:49, Mike Duigou wrote:
Looks fine to me. Do we have an issue open for restoring warnings
to the new build?
Mike
I don't know if there i
On 03/08/2013 08:09 AM, Mike Duigou wrote:
On Mar 8 2013, at 07:56 , Alan Bateman wrote:
On 08/03/2013 15:49, Mike Duigou wrote:
Looks fine to me. Do we have an issue open for restoring warnings to the new
build?
Mike
I don't know if there is an issue for that yet but as the new build comp
On 08/03/2013 16:09, Mike Duigou wrote:
:
Understood. Perhaps we can at least use JDK_FILTER incrementally. Do we have a
way to override the warnings used by the makefile?
I haven't tried it but Erik suggested in a reply to Dan a few months
ago, that is should be possible:
http://mail.openjdk
On Mar 8 2013, at 07:56 , Alan Bateman wrote:
> On 08/03/2013 15:49, Mike Duigou wrote:
>> Looks fine to me. Do we have an issue open for restoring warnings to the new
>> build?
>>
>> Mike
>>
> I don't know if there is an issue for that yet but as the new build compiles
> thousands of classes
On 08/03/2013 15:49, Mike Duigou wrote:
Looks fine to me. Do we have an issue open for restoring warnings to the new
build?
Mike
I don't know if there is an issue for that yet but as the new build
compiles thousands of classes in a single compilation unit then it means
we will need to make s
On 08/03/2013 15:49, Mike Duigou wrote:
Looks fine to me.
Thanks Mike.
> Do we have an issue open for restoring warnings to the new build?
Not yet, that I am aware of. We really need the ability to set lint
options per package/subpackage.
-Chris.
Mike
On Mar 8 2013, at 05:24 , Chris He
Looks fine to me. Do we have an issue open for restoring warnings to the new
build?
Mike
On Mar 8 2013, at 05:24 , Chris Hegarty wrote:
> Since the new build does not enable -Werror when compiling any java code, and
> disables quite a few lint options, new changes my inadvertently introduce
>
On 08/03/2013 13:24, Chris Hegarty wrote:
Since the new build does not enable -Werror when compiling any java
code, and disables quite a few lint options, new changes my
inadvertently introduce warnings without even realizing. This can
cause problems when building with the old build as many are
Since the new build does not enable -Werror when compiling any java
code, and disables quite a few lint options, new changes my
inadvertently introduce warnings without even realizing. This can cause
problems when building with the old build as many areas do compile with
-Werror set. Since the
On 08/03/2013 11:28, David Holmes wrote:
Now I'm a little concerned. I had not considered whether javac/javadoc
considered these to be complete lists. They have to know how to
combine the includes at a low-level with the excludes of a
higher-level - and potentially vice-versa.
I think javac s
Thanks Erik!
David
On 8/03/2013 9:25 PM, Erik Joelsson wrote:
On 2013-03-08 10:19, Alan Bateman wrote:
On 08/03/2013 01:48, David Holmes wrote:
Not sure which is best list for this given Alan will likely be the
only reviewer anyway :)
Webrevs under:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~dholmes/800
On 8/03/2013 9:15 PM, Erik Joelsson wrote:
Could it be that bash is somehow resetting your path when you launch it?
I can't see how. Yet I've annotated my copy and it is not being
executed. ???
Totally baffled. And rather peeved. This is a big waste of time.
Thanks,
David
/Erik
On 2013-0
On 8/03/2013 7:19 PM, Alan Bateman wrote:
On 08/03/2013 01:48, David Holmes wrote:
Not sure which is best list for this given Alan will likely be the
only reviewer anyway :)
Webrevs under:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~dholmes/8009428_8009429/
As further background to others, the reverting of t
On 2013-03-08 10:19, Alan Bateman wrote:
On 08/03/2013 01:48, David Holmes wrote:
Not sure which is best list for this given Alan will likely be the
only reviewer anyway :)
Webrevs under:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~dholmes/8009428_8009429/
As further background to others, the reverting of
Could it be that bash is somehow resetting your path when you launch it?
/Erik
On 2013-03-08 06:06, David Holmes wrote:
My build machine has autoconf 2.68 in /usr/bin but others use 2.67.
This means we keep getting differences in generated-configure.sh that
are not related to actual changes.
On 2013-03-08 03:59, Omair Majid wrote:
Hi,
I have a webrev at:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~omajid/webrevs/system-giflib/00/
It introduces a configure option --with-giflib that (similar to the
existing --with-zlib) allows specifying whether the build should use the
system installed giflib or th
On 08/03/2013 01:48, David Holmes wrote:
Not sure which is best list for this given Alan will likely be the
only reviewer anyway :)
Webrevs under:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~dholmes/8009428_8009429/
As further background to others, the reverting of the $ substitution
became possible when Nas
20 matches
Mail list logo
