Hi David
jdk8u-dev build worked perfectly with “—with-code-path” option; no other
patches were required! Thanks :-)
Regards,
Manas
> On 10-Jun-2015, at 10:22 am, Manas Thakur wrote:
>
> Okay, I found that I should use “jdk8u-dev”, and not “jdk8u”;
> —with-xcode-path is a valid option there
Okay, I found that I should use “jdk8u-dev”, and not “jdk8u”; —with-xcode-path
is a valid option there.
I’ll update if I am able to build now.
Regards,
Manas
> On 10-Jun-2015, at 9:19 am, Manas Thakur wrote:
>
> Hi David
>
> —with-code-path is an unrecognised option; it’s not there in the c
Hi David
—with-code-path is an unrecognised option; it’s not there in the configure
script as well.
Manas
> On 10-Jun-2015, at 2:41 am, David DeHaven wrote:
>
>
>> Hi all
>>
>> I had posted about problems with building openjdk8 on Mac OS X Yosemite last
>> year. I am still unable to do th
>> 2. Make a link form Xcode.4 lipo to /usr/bin/lipo
You don't need to do this with the current command line tools, they've fixed
the problem. If unsure, run "sudo xcode-select -switch /path/to/Xcode4.app" and
then try running lipo with no args, if it deadlocks then it's still broken and
you'l
> Hi all
>
> I had posted about problems with building openjdk8 on Mac OS X Yosemite last
> year. I am still unable to do the same. I did the following based on some
> posts tot he list in January:
>
> 1. bash configure
> —with-tools-dir=“/Applications/Xcode4/Xcode.app/Contents/Developer/usr/
Hi Denis,
I applied you instruction, but I still have an error during configuration:
configure:21029: /usr/bin/gcc --version >&5
i686-apple-darwin11-llvm-gcc-4.2 (GCC) 4.2.1 (Based on Apple Inc. build
5658) (LLVM build 2336.11.00)
Copyright (C) 2007 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
This is free
Thank you for the quick review, Erik!
Naoto
On 6/9/15 12:59 AM, Erik Joelsson wrote:
Hello Naoto,
Build changes look good to me.
/Erik
On 2015-06-08 22:58, Naoto Sato wrote:
Hello,
Please review the proposed changes for 8008577[1], the implementation
of the JEP-252[2]. The proposed changes
On 6/8/2015 9:57 PM, Jan Lahoda wrote:
On 9.6.2015 01:31, Daniel D. Daugherty wrote:
>
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~ihse/JDK-8085822-JEP-223-initial-patch/webrev.01
langtools/src/java.compiler/share/classes/javax/lang/model/SourceVersion.java
old L171: case "1.9":
Here's an updated webrev, which fixes the typos that were pointed out by
reviewers:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~ihse/JDK-8085822-JEP-223-initial-patch/webrev.02/
And here's a (much simpler) delta webrev which shows just these changes:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~ihse/JDK-8085822-JEP-223-initial-
On 2015-06-09 15:26, Claes Redestad wrote:
On 2015-06-09 15:12, Magnus Ihse Bursie wrote:
langtools/src/java.compiler/share/classes/javax/lang/model/SourceVersion.java
old L171: case "1.9":
new L171: case "9":
Should this logic support both versi
On 6/9/15 7:12 AM, Magnus Ihse Bursie wrote:
Hi Daniel,
Thank you for your thorough review!
This was my (failing) attempt at a "fast pass" review... :-)
On 2015-06-09 01:31, Daniel D. Daugherty wrote:
>
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~ihse/JDK-8085822-JEP-223-initial-patch/webrev.01
Gener
Hi Daniel,
Thank you for your thorough review!
On 2015-06-09 01:31, Daniel D. Daugherty wrote:
>
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~ihse/JDK-8085822-JEP-223-initial-patch/webrev.01
General comment: Not all copyright years were updated.
General comment: It looks like support for the 'patch' value i
Hello Naoto,
Build changes look good to me.
/Erik
On 2015-06-08 22:58, Naoto Sato wrote:
Hello,
Please review the proposed changes for 8008577[1], the implementation
of the JEP-252[2]. The proposed changes are located at:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~naoto/8008577/webrev.00/
Here are the v
13 matches
Mail list logo
