Based on additional Jon's feedback, I made some minor tweaks to the
patch. An updated webrev is here:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~jlahoda/8072480/webrev.06/langtools/
A delta webrev is available under "Author comments".
Unless there are objections, I'll work on pushing this to jdk9/dev.
Thanks
Looks good to me too; I like the name choice of the new
Provider/Description pair.
Maurizio
On 25/06/15 22:32, Jonathan Gibbons wrote:
Looks good to me :-)
-- Jon
On 06/24/2015 06:13 AM, Jan Lahoda wrote:
Hello,
After some offline discussions, I've somewhat changed the internal
API for pl
This looks good to me now.
/Erik
On 2015-06-02 18:50, Jan Lahoda wrote:
Hello Eric,
Thanks for the change, this seems definitely better to me. I've folded
your change that into my patch. An updated version (just langtools
this time):
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~jlahoda/8072480/webrev.04/lan
Looks good to me :-)
-- Jon
On 06/24/2015 06:13 AM, Jan Lahoda wrote:
Hello,
After some offline discussions, I've somewhat changed the internal API
for plugging in the platforms (based on Jon's advices). An updated
webrev is here:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~jlahoda/8072480/webrev.05/langto
Hello,
After some offline discussions, I've somewhat changed the internal API
for plugging in the platforms (based on Jon's advices). An updated
webrev is here:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~jlahoda/8072480/webrev.05/langtools/
How does this look?
Thanks for all the comments!
Jan
On 2.6.2015
On 2015-06-02 18:50, Jan Lahoda wrote:
Hello Eric,
Thanks for the change, this seems definitely better to me. I've folded
your change that into my patch. An updated version (just langtools
this time):
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~jlahoda/8072480/webrev.04/langtools/
Thanks!
From a build pers
Hello Eric,
Thanks for the change, this seems definitely better to me. I've folded
your change that into my patch. An updated version (just langtools this
time):
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~jlahoda/8072480/webrev.04/langtools/
Thanks!
Jan
On 2.6.2015 16:04, Erik Joelsson wrote:
Hello Jan,
Hello Jan,
Sorry to bother you with even more build changes, but with these file
moves, I realized that this new file, ct.sym, is really a part of the
jdk.compiler module and really not a special case at all. Because of
this, it should be generated as part of the jdk.compiler-gendata target.
Hi,
I made a somewhat bigger update (partially based on other feedback).
Summary of changes:
-the history data has been moved into langtools (I also moved the Ctsym.gmk)
-there are JDK 6 data now
-renamed the "-platform" option to "-release". Code/tests directly
related to the option has been
Ah, yes, I did not realize that. Thanks, will fix.
Thanks,
Jan
On 27.5.2015 11:59, Maurizio Cimadamore wrote:
Looks great. The only nitpick is that the comments in CreateSymbols
don't mention the fact that a side effect of the sym.txt generation is
the mentioned earlier in the same commen
Looks great. The only nitpick is that the comments in CreateSymbols
don't mention the fact that a side effect of the sym.txt generation is
the mentioned earlier in the same comments
(so one might wonder where does that come from).
Maurizio
On 27/05/15 10:37, Jan Lahoda wrote:
Hi,
I've upl
Hi,
I've uploaded another iteration, with these changes:
-the "symbols" file is now generated automatically (for the typical
OpenJDK case).
-fixed a minor issue in CreateSymbols that could cause putting class
description into wrong a file (the "break" -> "break OUTER;" change).
-jdk.management
On 2015-05-22 14:38, Jan Lahoda wrote:
Hi,
I've uploaded a new iteration of the patch(es):
top-level repository:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~jlahoda/8072480/webrev.01/top-level/
langtools:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~jlahoda/8072480/webrev.01/langtools/
(besides full webrevs, there are also web
On 22.5.2015 14:52, Maurizio Cimadamore wrote:
Excellent work.
I think the comment in CreateSymbols could be made clearer w.r.t. Probe
- i.e. that Probe should be ran on top of the JDK N - i.e.
/bin/java Probe --> classes-8
/bin/java Probe --> classes-7
/bin/java Probe --> classes-7
etc.
Sur
Excellent work.
I think the comment in CreateSymbols could be made clearer w.r.t. Probe
- i.e. that Probe should be ran on top of the JDK N - i.e.
/bin/java Probe --> classes-8
/bin/java Probe --> classes-7
/bin/java Probe --> classes-7
etc.
Maurizio
On 22/05/15 13:38, Jan Lahoda wrote:
Hi
Hi,
I've uploaded a new iteration of the patch(es):
top-level repository:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~jlahoda/8072480/webrev.01/top-level/
langtools:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~jlahoda/8072480/webrev.01/langtools/
(besides full webrevs, there are also webrevs showing the differences
between .0
On 22.5.2015 08:49, Erik Joelsson wrote:
On 2015-05-21 21:59, mark.reinh...@oracle.com wrote:
2015/5/21 12:01 -0700, jan.lah...@oracle.com:
This is a patch adding a new option, -platform, to javac.
Patch for the top-level repository is here:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~jlahoda/8072480/webrev.
On 2015-05-21 21:59, mark.reinh...@oracle.com wrote:
2015/5/21 12:01 -0700, jan.lah...@oracle.com:
This is a patch adding a new option, -platform, to javac.
Patch for the top-level repository is here:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~jlahoda/8072480/webrev.00/top-level/
Patch for the langtools rep
2015/5/21 12:01 -0700, jan.lah...@oracle.com:
> This is a patch adding a new option, -platform, to javac.
>
> Patch for the top-level repository is here:
> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~jlahoda/8072480/webrev.00/top-level/
>
> Patch for the langtools repository is here:
> http://cr.openjdk.java.net
On 21/05/15 14:14, Jan Lahoda wrote:
For 6, 7, 8, ... we could assume there is an ordering. But seems to me
that the flexibility of being able to specify the baseline (rather
than having the chosen automatically based on the version number) is
not bad. But I can change it to automatic baselin
On 21.5.2015 14:14, Maurizio Cimadamore wrote:
On 21/05/15 12:48, Jan Lahoda wrote:
As an example, consider we would be currently storing data for 6, 7
and 8. We could have full 8 APIs stored, and then 8->7 diff and 7->6
diff. So the baseline for 7 would be 8 and the baseline for 6 would be 7.
On 21/05/15 12:48, Jan Lahoda wrote:
As an example, consider we would be currently storing data for 6, 7
and 8. We could have full 8 APIs stored, and then 8->7 diff and 7->6
diff. So the baseline for 7 would be 8 and the baseline for 6 would be 7.
When the data for 9 would be added(*), we co
Hi Magnus,
On 21.5.2015 13:21, Magnus Ihse Bursie wrote:
Hi Erik and Jan,
Erik's modifications look much better to me.
I'm just not entirerly satisfied with how this new symbolgenerator tool
fits int our model. It's really a buildtool, similar to the other
buildtools we have.
First of all, th
On 2015-05-21 13:21, Magnus Ihse Bursie wrote:
Hi Erik and Jan,
Erik's modifications look much better to me.
I'm just not entirerly satisfied with how this new symbolgenerator
tool fits int our model. It's really a buildtool, similar to the other
buildtools we have.
First of all, the locat
Hi Maurizio,
Thanks for the comments.
On 21.5.2015 12:31, Maurizio Cimadamore wrote:
Hi Jan,
great work - couple of comments below:
* it seems like some of the routines in Arguments can be simplified
using lambdas - especially lookupPlatformProvider and checkOptionAllowed
Yes, I'll take a lo
Hi Erik and Jan,
Erik's modifications look much better to me.
I'm just not entirerly satisfied with how this new symbolgenerator tool
fits int our model. It's really a buildtool, similar to the other
buildtools we have.
First of all, the location is not really ideal. Compare with how the
ja
Hi Jan,
great work - couple of comments below:
* it seems like some of the routines in Arguments can be simplified
using lambdas - especially lookupPlatformProvider and checkOptionAllowed
* Why JDKPlatformProvider is not called JDKPlatformProvider*Factory* ?
* JavacProcessingEnvironment.Joining
Hello Eric,
Thanks a lot for your feedback and changes! I'll fold them into the patch.
Thanks,
Jan
On 21.5.2015 11:42, Erik Joelsson wrote:
Hello Jan,
On the build changes there are some things I would like to change.
* The creation of the ct.sym file should be done in a separate file,
wi
Hello Jan,
On the build changes there are some things I would like to change.
* The creation of the ct.sym file should be done in a separate file,
with a separate top level target. The images target should just be about
linking and pulling things together, not actual building/compiling of
thi
Hi,
This is a patch adding a new option, -platform, to javac.
Patch for the top-level repository is here:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~jlahoda/8072480/webrev.00/top-level/
Patch for the langtools repository is here:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~jlahoda/8072480/webrev.00/langtools/
These changes
30 matches
Mail list logo