Re: RFR: JDK-8031767 Support system or alternative implementations of zlib

On 08/02/16 09:55, Alan Bateman wrote: On 08/02/2016 10:42, Seán Coffey wrote: Is there an option to fall back to the older v.1.2.8 implementation if necessary ? It would certainly alleviate issues for any applications that might run into issues with the latest and greatest zlib libraries.

Re: RFR: JDK-8031767 Support system or alternative implementations of zlib

On 10/02/2016 13:57, Seán Coffey wrote: I'm all for allowing one to introduce a new version of zlib to their JDK at runtime. I just don't think it's in the interests of enterprises and stability to introduce a dependency to the JDK on the underlying OS zlib libraries. Could we at least

Re: RFR: JDK-8031767 Support system or alternative implementations of zlib

On 10/02/16 14:29, Alan Bateman wrote: On 10/02/2016 13:57, Seán Coffey wrote: I'm all for allowing one to introduce a new version of zlib to their JDK at runtime. I just don't think it's in the interests of enterprises and stability to introduce a dependency to the JDK on the underlying OS

Re: RFR: JDK-8145789: Switch JDK 9 to use Jib in JPRT

Accidentally left some debug lines. Also reverted the change to set --with-jobs. http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~erikj/8145789/webrev.top.03/ /Erik On 2016-02-09 21:00, Erik Joelsson wrote: This never made it in because of various issues. Those have now been resolved, so reposting this, updated

Re: RFR: JDK-8149479: Fix compare.sh to have a clean baseline with COMPARE_BUILD

Erik: Looks good to me as well. Tim Updated in place. /Erik On 2016-02-10 14:16, Magnus Ihse Bursie wrote: On 2016-02-10 14:11, Erik Joelsson wrote: Hello Tim, New webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~erikj/8149479/webrev.02/ I agree about 1, so I started looking at it. Got confused why

Re: RFR: JDK-8031767 Support system or alternative implementations of zlib

There's an endless debate about the pros and cons of "dynamic linking". I think it would be best for the JDK to link to system libraries by default, if possible. For a particular JDK image, one can drop a patched libz into a suitable lib directory to override the system one. It should also be

Re: RFR: 8149594 - Clean up Hotspot makefiles

Den 10/2/16 kl. 21:31, skrev Jesper Wilhelmsson: > https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8149594 > http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~jwilhelm/8149594/webrev.00/ -- I might have preferred two webrevs, one of only whitespace

Re: RFR: 8149594 - Clean up Hotspot makefiles

Sending again to include the build-dev list. /Jesper Den 10/2/16 kl. 21:31, skrev Jesper Wilhelmsson: Hi, Please review this cleanup of the Hotspot makefiles. Since I have been spending some time in the makefiles lately there were a few random cleanups that I couldn't stop myself from doing.

Re: RFR: 8149594 - Clean up Hotspot makefiles

Den 11/2/16 kl. 03:07, skrev David Holmes: Jesper, Magnus is rewriting all of the hotspot build system. Are these cleanups really worthwhile at this stage? The cleanups are worthwhile to me since I work on mostly Mac and port all my changes over to the linux makefiles in bulk, and without

Re: RFR: JDK-8149479: Fix compare.sh to have a clean baseline with COMPARE_BUILD

On 2016-02-10 07:13, Tim Bell wrote: Erik: Please review these fixes for compare.sh and the COMPARE_BUILD flag for make. The rather new feature COMPARE_BUILD, which builds twice, applying some kind of change between them, is really neat. Especially when run through JPRT to check all

Re: RFR: JDK-8149479: Fix compare.sh to have a clean baseline with COMPARE_BUILD

Hello Tim, New webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~erikj/8149479/webrev.02/ I agree about 1, so I started looking at it. Got confused why any changes to it didn't seem to have any effect until I realized the docs are no longer compared, which is what that was added for. So I fixed comparing

Re: RFR: JDK-8149479: Fix compare.sh to have a clean baseline with COMPARE_BUILD

On 2016-02-10 11:23, Magnus Ihse Bursie wrote: However, I'd like to use the opportunity to talk a bit about the compare script. :-) I think it is a very good initiative to fix the compare script so that two consequitive builds on the same machine should compare equal. Apparently, that's

Re: RFR: JDK-8149479: Fix compare.sh to have a clean baseline with COMPARE_BUILD

On 2016-02-10 14:11, Erik Joelsson wrote: Hello Tim, New webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~erikj/8149479/webrev.02/ I agree about 1, so I started looking at it. Got confused why any changes to it didn't seem to have any effect until I realized the docs are no longer compared, which is what

Re: RFR: JDK-8149479: Fix compare.sh to have a clean baseline with COMPARE_BUILD

Updated in place. /Erik On 2016-02-10 14:16, Magnus Ihse Bursie wrote: On 2016-02-10 14:11, Erik Joelsson wrote: Hello Tim, New webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~erikj/8149479/webrev.02/ I agree about 1, so I started looking at it. Got confused why any changes to it didn't seem to have

Re: RFR: JDK-8031767 Support system or alternative implementations of zlib

I'm actually very happy that we've dropped private patches against libz. And using the system libz seems like the right thing to do on Unix systems, where libz should be ubiquitous. On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 4:25 PM, Xueming Shen wrote: > > One of the benefits of moving

Re: RFR: JDK-8145789: Switch JDK 9 to use Jib in JPRT

On 2016-02-10 17:27, Erik Joelsson wrote: Accidentally left some debug lines. Also reverted the change to set --with-jobs. http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~erikj/8145789/webrev.top.03/ Looks good to me. Go jib! :) /Magnus /Erik On 2016-02-09 21:00, Erik Joelsson wrote: This never made it in

Re: RFR: JDK-8031767 Support system or alternative implementations of zlib

One of the benefits of moving to the system libz is actually for better/easy maintenance. Just replacing the offending version of libz with an earlier/later version that works, instead of waiting for a customized jdk/jre image with a working/bundled libz, or the next update release. Especially

Re: RFR: 8149594 - Clean up Hotspot makefiles

Jesper, Magnus is rewriting all of the hotspot build system. Are these cleanups really worthwhile at this stage? David On 11/02/2016 8:10 AM, Jesper Wilhelmsson wrote: Sending again to include the build-dev list. /Jesper Den 10/2/16 kl. 21:31, skrev Jesper Wilhelmsson: Hi, Please review

Re: RFR: 8149594 - Clean up Hotspot makefiles

Hi Kim, Thanks for looking at this! Den 10/2/16 kl. 23:34, skrev Kim Barrett: Den 10/2/16 kl. 21:31, skrev Jesper Wilhelmsson: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8149594 http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~jwilhelm/8149594/webrev.00/

Re: RFR: 8149594 - Clean up Hotspot makefiles

> On Feb 10, 2016, at 7:51 PM, Jesper Wilhelmsson > wrote: > Den 10/2/16 kl. 23:34, skrev Kim Barrett: >> Den 10/2/16 kl. 21:31, skrev Jesper Wilhelmsson: >>> https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8149594 >>>