Jonathan,
Personally, I would prefer to have a separate set of tests - smoke
tests and appropriate make target. e.g. make test instead of BOOT_CYCLE
logic.
Test suite should have known coverage and predictable effects, otherwise
it makes an illusion of testing.
-Dmitry
On 2012-09-10 19:09,
Magnus,
You've only explained how incremental builds could work for Java classes
in the new build-infra. What about incremental builds of native code?
E.g. in AWT we often do the following:
$ cd make/sun/awt (or make/java/awt, or make/sun/lwawt)
$ make
And this re-builds both AWT classes
On 11/09/12 14:37, Anthony Petrov wrote:
Magnus,
You've only explained how incremental builds could work for Java classes
in the new build-infra. What about incremental builds of native code?
E.g. in AWT we often do the following:
$ cd make/sun/awt (or make/java/awt, or make/sun/lwawt)
$
On 2012-09-11 01:00, Jonathan Gibbons wrote:
Can we have a makefile target that invokes your script? E.g. make
full-build.
It is easier to document the list of public targets supported by the
Makefiles than to describe a set of assorted extra scripts. And, it
would fit more uniformly into
2012/9/10 14:26 -0700, michael.f...@oracle.com:
I have updated the webrev:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~mfang/7196354/webrev.01/
...
I am also moving the file from root of source tree to
jdk/make/jdk.tbom. SGT strongly recommends we follow the standard file
naming convention used by the
Thanks Mark for the comment. Yes, we will do that.
thanks,
-michael
On 12年09月11日 08:09 上午, mark.reinh...@oracle.com wrote:
2012/9/10 14:26 -0700, michael.f...@oracle.com:
I have updated the webrev:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~mfang/7196354/webrev.01/
...
I am also moving the file from root
That would depend on the semantics of --enable-boot-cycle.
Building with a boot cycle should not be a configuration option. The
ability to do a boot cycle should (IMO) always be enabled. The choice of
whether to build with a boot cycle should be made by the user at the
time make is invoked,
Dmitry,
I agree on the desire to have a good set of smoke tests,
but there should be room in the world for both smoke
tests and a full boot cycle build. We do not have to
restrict ourselves to one or the other.
-- Jon
On 09/11/2012 02:41 AM, Dmitry Samersoff wrote:
Jonathan,
Personally, I
On 09/11/2012 07:45 AM, Magnus Ihse Bursie wrote:
On 2012-09-11 01:00, Jonathan Gibbons wrote:
Can we have a makefile target that invokes your script? E.g. make
full-build.
It is easier to document the list of public targets supported by the
Makefiles than to describe a set of assorted
On Sep 10, 2012, at 9:24 AM, Jonathan Gibbons wrote:
On 09/11/2012 07:45 AM, Magnus Ihse Bursie wrote:
On 2012-09-11 01:00, Jonathan Gibbons wrote:
Can we have a makefile target that invokes your script? E.g. make
full-build.
It is easier to document the list of public targets
Den tisdagen den 11:e september 2012 skrev Alan Bateman:
So far my experience is that touching native code and re-building is super
fast, it's on par to executing specific make files in the old build (while
wearing the appropriate amulet around one's neck of course). Touching java
classes and
On 11/09/2012 19:23, Fredrik Öhrström wrote:
Den tisdagen den 11:e september 2012 skrev Alan Bateman:
So far my experience is that touching native code and re-building
is super fast, it's on par to executing specific make files in the
old build (while wearing the appropriate amulet
Changeset: 9c434431d013
Author:ohair
Date: 2012-09-11 13:40 -0700
URL: http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk8/build/jdk/rev/9c434431d013
7197771: Adjust jdk sources to avoid use of implementation defined value of
__FILE__
7180608: Sort the order of object files when building shared
11 sep 2012 kl. 21:59 skrev Alan Bateman:
With a sjavac config I touched one source file and the incremental build took
36s so much better. In this case the one class caused 77 classes to be
re-compiled, 10 native files, and 2 shared libraries to be re-linked. On the
other hand, the old
14 matches
Mail list logo
