Hi all,
Last week I openend JDK-8200052 and posted it to 2d-dev for RFR.
Me included we have two reviewers and the tier1 tests ran through. Are
there really any serious objections against pushing this tiny fix? It would
make life for us (working on zLinux) easier.
I will wait for 24 more hours
Hi Guys,
I've provided a gcc-specific fix in the makefile to prevent the warning.
-- Awt2dLibraries.gmk:471 --
DISABLED_WARNINGS_gcc := array-bounds clobbered implicit-fallthrough
shift-negative-value, \
I've also provided an underflow fix in the .c file to fix the problem
*causing* the warnin
Hi Phil!
thanks for pointing out the history, I was not aware of that.
I looked at that huffman coding and tried to determine whether the
underflow may happen in real life scenarios. I could at least not exclude
that possibility. I looked thru the mailing list threads - did someone
analyse and co
I prefer the makefile fix, since we don't by policy, make changes to the
imported libraries.
On Jan 23rd [1] I expressed such a tool-chain specific makefile fix
would be fine by me.
Toolchain specific means ideally it would look like what Magnus wrote [2]
Although you said GC 5.4.0 would nee
:)
> Hi Adam,
>
> no problem. I'll open a bug and if necessary find a second reviewer.
Thanks for fixing, maybe I can stop building with warnings disabled on our
s390 machines now.
>
> ..Thomas
>
> > On Wed, Mar 21, 2018 at 5:10 PM, Andrew Leonard
wrote:
> > Hi Thomas,
> > I'm a "contribut
> Cc: 2d-dev <2d-dev@openjdk.java.net>
> Date:21/03/2018 15:42
> Subject:Re: [OpenJDK 2D-Dev] RFR: Bug Pending: Build fails to
> compile jchuff.c
> --
>
>
>
> Hi,
>
> @Andrew Leonard: Sorry, I cannot find your na
Development
IBM Hursley
IBM United Kingdom Ltd
Phone internal: 245913, external: 01962 815913
internet email: andrew_m_leon...@uk.ibm.com
From: "Thomas Stüfe"
To: Adam Farley8 , Andrew Leonard
Cc: 2d-dev <2d-dev@openjdk.java.net>
Date: 21/03/2018 15:42
Subject:
Hi,
@Andrew Leonard: Sorry, I cannot find your name in
http://openjdk.java.net/census#jdk. Are you a jdk contributor/reviewer, and
if yes, what is your user name?
@openjdk 2d folks: I also need to know: does the 2d project have any
special rules about who can push or can I just push (I am jdk rev
cc'ing Tom directly in case this fell into a digest.
> I've reviewed it. The change looks good, it's a good programming
practice while loop now :-)
> Cheers
> Andrew
>
> Andrew Leonard
> Java Runtimes Development
> IBM Hursley
> IBM United Kingdom Ltd
> Phone internal: 245913, external: 01962 81
I've reviewed it. The change looks good, it's a good programming practice
while loop now :-)
Cheers
Andrew
Andrew Leonard
Java Runtimes Development
IBM Hursley
IBM United Kingdom Ltd
Phone internal: 245913, external: 01962 815913
internet email: andrew_m_leon...@uk.ibm.com
Unless stated otherw
Hi Tom,
Much obliged. :)
Any volunteers to be the 2nd reviewer?
Best Regards
Adam Farley
> Hi Adam,
>
> this patch looks good. I can sponsor this for you if noone else steps
up, but we need a second reviewer, preferably one from the 2d project.
>
> Best Regards, Thomas
>
> On Wed, Mar 21,
Hi Adam,
this patch looks good. I can sponsor this for you if noone else steps up,
but we need a second reviewer, preferably one from the 2d project.
Best Regards, Thomas
On Wed, Mar 21, 2018 at 12:41 PM, Adam Farley8
wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> If committers really don't want this code, we could alw
Hi All,
If committers really don't want this code, we could always try fixing the
code that the warning
is complaining about.
-- Change
---
diff --git a/src/java.desktop/share/native/libjavajpeg/jchuff.c
b/src/java.desktop/share/n
Hi All,
I ask for a committer to add one word to make/lib/Awt2dLibraries.gmk to
solve a build break.
We need to go to line 495 and add array-bounds into the list of disabled
warnings.
So this:
DISABLED_WARNINGS_gcc := clobbered implicit-fallthrough
shift-negative-value, \
becomes this:
DI
Hi All,
I ask for a committer to one word to make/lib/Awt2dLibraries.gmk
We need to go to line 495 and add array-bounds into the list of disabled
warnings.
So this:
DISABLED_WARNINGS_gcc := clobbered implicit-fallthrough
shift-negative-value, \
becomes this:
DISABLED_WARNINGS_gcc := clobbe
-- Summary --
I ask for a committer to go into jdk/jdk and add one word to
make/lib/Awt2dLibraries.gmk
We need to go to line 495 and add array-bounds into the list of disabled
warnings.
So this:
DISABLED_WARNINGS_gcc := clobbered implicit-fallthrough
shift-negative-value, \
becomes this:
Re: [OpenJDK 2D-Dev] RFR: Bug Pending: Build fails to compile
jchuff.cErik Joelsson to: Adam Farley8 01/02/2018 17:06
Cc: build-dev, David Holmes, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz, Magnus Ihse Bursie
From: Erik Joelsson
To: Adam Farley8
Cc: build-dev , David Holmes
, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
, Magn
Hi Adam,
The wiki:
https://wiki.openjdk.java.net/display/Build/Supported+Build+Platforms
should have been updated for 10, and I expect it will be updated for 11
as we are looking to update all of the "official" tool chains. Given the
official gcc version for 9 was already 4.9.2 I don't think
The discussion about SLE seems to have taken over.
This was originally about zLinux.
If it actually makes sense for zLinux for JDK 11 then I have no
objections to
the proposed toolchain specific patch ...
If it does not make sense for 11 then I think you should look only at 8u
and prepare
a
>On 01/23/2018 05:25 PM, Adam Farley8 wrote:
>>> SLE-11:* doesn't even have OpenJDK-8 and is also going to be out of
support
>>> next year anyway.
>>
>> Does this mean the gcc version will change? If you have hard
information on
>> this, I'd appreciate the URL.
>
>I'm not sure what you mean. S
On 01/23/2018 03:13 PM, Adam Farley8 wrote:
The URL supplied by David (Holmes) lists 4.8.5 as the gcc version for
building JDK9 on SLES 11.3/12.1. Whether it's in a repository or not,
I read that as "this is the gcc version you should be building JDK9 on".
https://wiki.openjdk.java.net/display/B
On 01/23/2018 02:44 PM, Adam Farley8 wrote:
John: I read your email, and I understand your position. I disagree with it,
but I understand it. 4.8.5 is an old version of gcc, but right now it is the
listed gcc version for SUSE sles on intel, ppc, ppcle, and zLinux. Even if
this is not the case for
On 01/23/2018 05:25 PM, Adam Farley8 wrote:
SLE-11:* doesn't even have OpenJDK-8 and is also going to be out of support
next year anyway.
Does this mean the gcc version will change? If you have hard information on
this, I'd appreciate the URL.
I'm not sure what you mean. SLE12-SP3 ships gcc
> On 01/23/2018 03:13 PM, Adam Farley8 wrote:
>> The URL supplied by David (Holmes) lists 4.8.5 as the gcc version for
>> building JDK9 on SLES 11.3/12.1. Whether it's in a repository or not,
>> I read that as "this is the gcc version you should be building JDK9
on".
>>
>>
https://urldefense.pro
> On 01/23/2018 02:44 PM, Adam Farley8 wrote:
>> John: I read your email, and I understand your position. I disagree
with it,
>> but I understand it. 4.8.5 is an old version of gcc, but right now it
is the
>> listed gcc version for SUSE sles on intel, ppc, ppcle, and zLinux. Even
if
>> this is n
Hi All,
All: I think I responded to everyone below. Please could a committer or
author raise a bug and, if people are happy with this change, line it up
for contribution to JDKs 8-11 (assuming 4.8.5 is still the recommended gcc
for JDK10 and 11 on SUSE sles)?
Erik: One toolchain-specific change,
26 matches
Mail list logo
