JDK 9 RFR of JDK-8075771: Enable "missing" doclint check in build of the java.desktop module

Hello, Changes to fix all the "missing" doclint warnings in the client libraries are out for review (see subtasks of JDK-8071630: "Fix remaining doclint warnings in the jdk repo"). Looking ahead to the happy day when all the changes are pushed and propagated to jdk9 / dev, please review the

Re: We REALLY nead a NON-PCH build in JPRT NOW!

On 2015-04-03 00:36, Kim Barrett wrote: On Apr 2, 2015, at 12:06 PM, Volker Simonis wrote: while precompiled headers (PCH) are a nice and effective way of improving hotspot build times Are we sure about that? No, we're not. :-) We in the build team, mainly Erik, have done testing on severa

Re: RfR JDK-8076552 nightly build break fix

Hi Pete, Sorry all this was happening in the wee hours for me :) On 9/04/2015 3:55 AM, Pete Brunet wrote: How's this? http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~ptbrunet/JDK-8076552/webrev.03 Seems like a good temporary fix. To answer your earlier question to my comment, the $60K question is whether this

Re: RfR JDK-8076552 nightly build break fix

Thanks Sean, On 4/8/15 1:39 PM, Seán Coffey wrote: > Pete, > > http://openjdk.java.net/projects/jdk8u/groundrules.html > Rule 1. What are your plans for JDK 9 ? Is that family affected ? If > not - add '9-na' label to bug report. There have been no issues with 9 so I added 9-na. > > Rule 4. Approv

Re: RfR JDK-8076552 nightly build break fix

Hi Pete, Sean said 'your fix will go via 8u-dev' - is this the case? Or are we planning on pushing your changes to 8u Master directly (after proper build/test)? Do you have a forest on nfs? (from where I can pull/clone your fixes)? - Lana On 04/08/2015 11:08 AM, Pete Brunet wrote: I confi

Re: RfR JDK-8076552 nightly build break fix

Phil will do the push. I assume it needs to go to 8u-dev. On 4/8/15 1:38 PM, Lana Steuck wrote: > Hi Pete, > > Sean said 'your fix will go via 8u-dev' - is this the case? > > Or are we planning on pushing your changes to 8u Master directly > (after proper build/test)? > > Do you have a forest on

Re: RfR JDK-8076552 nightly build break fix

Pete, http://openjdk.java.net/projects/jdk8u/groundrules.html Rule 1. What are your plans for JDK 9 ? Is that family affected ? If not - add '9-na' label to bug report. Rule 4. Approval requests should be carried out on jdk8u-dev mailing list. regards, Sean. On 08/04/2015 19:14, Pete Brunet

Re: RfR JDK-8076552 nightly build break fix

I confirmed the javadoc is gone, and make docs did not fail. I have yet to submit the JPRT job. Sean/Winston do you want to wait for the 7 JPRT jobs to finish before you approve the push? Phil will have to do the push; my committer status is pending. Pete On 4/8/15 1:00 PM, Phil Race wrote: >

Re: RfR JDK-8076552 nightly build break fix

+1 Mandy On 4/8/2015 11:00 AM, Phil Race wrote: That looks good to me. -phil. On 4/8/2015 10:55 AM, Pete Brunet wrote: How's this? http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~ptbrunet/JDK-8076552/webrev.03 On 4/8/15 12:47 PM, Mandy Chung wrote: I agree with Phil's suggestion and file a bug to follow up th

Re: RfR JDK-8076552 nightly build break fix

resending - too many on To:/Cc: On 4/8/15 1:08 PM, Pete Brunet wrote: > I confirmed the javadoc is gone, and make docs did not fail. > > I have yet to submit the JPRT job. > > Sean/Winston do you want to wait for the 7 JPRT jobs to finish before > you approve the push? > > Phil will have to do the

Re: RfR JDK-8076552 nightly build break fix

That looks good to me. -phil. On 4/8/2015 10:55 AM, Pete Brunet wrote: How's this? http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~ptbrunet/JDK-8076552/webrev.03 On 4/8/15 12:47 PM, Mandy Chung wrote: I agree with Phil's suggestion and file a bug to follow up the javadoc build issue. You can verify the result f

Re: RfR JDK-8076552 nightly build break fix

How's this? http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~ptbrunet/JDK-8076552/webrev.03 On 4/8/15 12:47 PM, Mandy Chung wrote: > I agree with Phil's suggestion and file a bug to follow up the javadoc > build issue. > > You can verify the result from make docs that there is no javadoc > generated for this package o

Re: RfR JDK-8076552 nightly build break fix

I agree with Phil's suggestion and file a bug to follow up the javadoc build issue. You can verify the result from make docs that there is no javadoc generated for this package on windows build. Mandy On 4/8/2015 10:29 AM, Phil Race wrote: Isn't it sufficient to comment out this one line ?

Re: RfR JDK-8076552 nightly build break fix

On 4/8/15 12:29 PM, Phil Race wrote: > Isn't it sufficient to comment out this one line ? > > 1215 ALL_OTHER_TARGETS += jaccessdocs > > .. and add a comment as to why ? I'm not familiar with this make file so I took the straightforward approach. If you are confident that will work I'll redo the

Re: RfR JDK-8076552 nightly build break fix

Isn't it sufficient to comment out this one line ? 1215 ALL_OTHER_TARGETS += jaccessdocs .. and add a comment as to why ? -phil. On 04/08/2015 10:25 AM, Pete Brunet wrote: Here is an updated patch. http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~ptbrunet/JDK-8076552/webrev.02/ It simply removes the com.sun.jav

Re: RfR JDK-8076552 nightly build break fix

Here is an updated patch. http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~ptbrunet/JDK-8076552/webrev.02/ It simply removes the com.sun.java.accessibility.util part of the javadoc generation. How to better deal with the javadoc generation can be left to later. Please let me know if this patch meets with your approv

Re: RFR(S): JDK-8077137 Port jdk.internal.instrumentation to jdk 9

On 4/8/2015 3:21 AM, Staffan Larsen wrote: Please review these small changes to support an addition of closed code to the java.instrument module. webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~sla/8077137-open/webrev.01/ The change looks fine.

Re: RfR JDK-8076552 nightly build break fix

On 4/8/15 1:22 AM, David Holmes wrote: > Pete, > > I think Erik's suggestion in the bug report is more appropriate. If > this is only a source bundle issue then the build instructions for > javadoc should either be Windows specific, or else check for source > existence. David, Considering that th

Re: RfR JDK-8076552 nightly build break fix

Hi Mandy, com.sun.java.accessibility.util can be used on other platforms. com.sun.java.accessibility is Win only. -Pete On 4/8/15 1:06 AM, Mandy Chung wrote: > This API is only available on windows but not other platforms. I > think src/windows/classes is the right location. > > Mandy > > On 4/

Re: RFR(S): JDK-8077137 Port jdk.internal.instrumentation to jdk 9

Looks good to me. /Erik On 2015-04-08 12:21, Staffan Larsen wrote: Please review these small changes to support an addition of closed code to the java.instrument module. webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~sla/8077137-open/webrev.01/

RFR(S): JDK-8077137 Port jdk.internal.instrumentation to jdk 9

Please review these small changes to support an addition of closed code to the java.instrument module. webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~sla/8077137-open/webrev.01/ Thanks, /Staffan

Re: RFR: JDK-8073634: Improve clean targets

Hello, New webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~erikj/8073634/webrev.02/ On 2015-04-07 13:26, Magnus Ihse Bursie wrote: In general it looks good. I have a couple of remarks, though. 1) In Clean-docs, you do: +$(RM) -r $(SUPPORT_OUTPUTDIR)/docs +$(RM) -r $(IMAGES_OUTPUTDIR)/docs