On 2013-05-15 06:21, David Holmes wrote:
On 15/05/2013 12:34 AM, Erik Joelsson wrote:
This patch tries to be smarter when figuring out optimal jvm args for
sjavac, especially if the jvm used is 32bit.
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~erikj/8014514/webrev.root.01/
For this to work properly, two pa
On 2013-05-15 09:01, Erik Joelsson wrote:
On 2013-05-15 06:21, David Holmes wrote:
On 15/05/2013 12:34 AM, Erik Joelsson wrote:
This patch tries to be smarter when figuring out optimal jvm args for
sjavac, especially if the jvm used is 32bit.
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~erikj/8014514/webre
in JDK-8010465, an attempt was made to clear up log level handling. It
wasn't completely successful. The log level isn't available to sjavac
and probably not in several other places that needs it.
I solved it by adding LOG_LEVEL=$(LOG_LEVEL) to the MAKE variable in
spec.gmk, much like the VERB
- Original Message -
> Mark,
>
> I did some experiments on weekends and I'm against of using -u option
> under any circumstances.
>
> People sponsoring changeset can make a mistake - most obvious one is
> wrong merge conflict resolution. If it happens we are loosing the way to
> solve the
- Original Message -
> On 11/05/2013 2:53 AM, Andrew Hughes wrote:
>
> > I have offered a very simple solution to that problem to which no-one has
> > yet
> > given any reason as to why we should not implemented it; simply add a
> > HotSpot tree
> > where pushes can be made prior to JPRT
Changeset: 625ddb0052e1
Author:amurillo
Date: 2013-05-03 08:19 -0700
URL: http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk8/build/hotspot/rev/625ddb0052e1
8013800: new hotspot build - hs25-b32
Reviewed-by: jcoomes
! make/hotspot_version
Changeset: c456f4510385
Author:sla
Date: 2013-05-03 1
Erik:
in JDK-8010465, an attempt was made to clear up log level handling. It
wasn't completely successful. The log level isn't available to sjavac
and probably not in several other places that needs it.
I solved it by adding LOG_LEVEL=$(LOG_LEVEL) to the MAKE variable in
spec.gmk, much like
Hi Bill:
Some architecture dependent flags do not make it through to the
libjsig.so and libsaproc.so makefiles. As a result, the libs are not
compiled/linked with the correct flags for that particular variant.
Fix is to make sure EXTRA_CFLAGS propogates down correctly.
http://cr.openjdk.java
Thanks!
bill
On 5/15/2013 5:07 PM, Tim Bell wrote:
Hi Bill:
Some architecture dependent flags do not make it through to the
libjsig.so and libsaproc.so makefiles. As a result, the libs are not
compiled/linked with the correct flags for that particular variant.
Fix is to make sure EXTRA_CFLA
Hi Bill,
(re-fixed the build-dev alias)
On 16/05/2013 6:48 AM, BILL PITTORE wrote:
Some architecture dependent flags do not make it through to the
libjsig.so and libsaproc.so makefiles. As a result, the libs are not
compiled/linked with the correct flags for that particular variant. Fix
is to m
On 5/13/2013 8:59 AM, David DeHaven wrote:
If it were my choice, Mac OS X 10.8 would be the base OS with Xcode 4.6.1
(current) with clang as the officially supported compiler and with an option to
use gcc. I don't see why that would't last at least the public lifecycle of
JDK8. What I would b
Hi Bill,
On 16/05/2013 10:05 AM, David Holmes wrote:
Hi Bill,
(re-fixed the build-dev alias)
On 16/05/2013 6:48 AM, BILL PITTORE wrote:
Some architecture dependent flags do not make it through to the
libjsig.so and libsaproc.so makefiles. As a result, the libs are not
compiled/linked with the
On 5/15/2013 8:05 PM, David Holmes wrote:
Hi Bill,
(re-fixed the build-dev alias)
On 16/05/2013 6:48 AM, BILL PITTORE wrote:
Some architecture dependent flags do not make it through to the
libjsig.so and libsaproc.so makefiles. As a result, the libs are not
compiled/linked with the correct fla
I'm fine with these changes. I can commit if someone can do the push if
you think we need to get this in tonight.
bill
On 5/15/2013 8:43 PM, David Holmes wrote:
Hi Bill,
On 16/05/2013 10:05 AM, David Holmes wrote:
Hi Bill,
(re-fixed the build-dev alias)
On 16/05/2013 6:48 AM, BILL PITTORE
On 16/05/2013 11:37 AM, BILL PITTORE wrote:
I'm fine with these changes. I can commit if someone can do the push if
you think we need to get this in tonight.
I can push for you but I don't think this will get in "tonight" nor in
time for this week's build.
We also need a backport for hs24.
>> If it were my choice, Mac OS X 10.8 would be the base OS with Xcode 4.6.1
>> (current) with clang as the officially supported compiler and with an option
>> to use gcc. I don't see why that would't last at least the public lifecycle
>> of JDK8. What I would be more concerned with is the appa
On 16/05/2013 10:22 AM, David Katleman wrote:
On 5/13/2013 8:59 AM, David DeHaven wrote:
If it were my choice, Mac OS X 10.8 would be the base OS with Xcode
4.6.1 (current) with clang as the officially supported compiler and
with an option to use gcc. I don't see why that would't last at least
David's change looks good to me.
/Staffan
On 16 maj 2013, at 03:37, BILL PITTORE wrote:
> I'm fine with these changes. I can commit if someone can do the push if you
> think we need to get this in tonight.
>
> bill
>
> On 5/15/2013 8:43 PM, David Holmes wrote:
>> Hi Bill,
>>
>> On 16/05/201
18 matches
Mail list logo
