On 4/10/2016 7:42 PM, Erik Helin wrote:
On 2016-09-30, Leonid Mesnik wrote:
Hi
I think that it would be better to split this test into 4 tests. Currently
this test is going to be skipped if any specific GCare set. Or it could even
fail if any G1 specific options is set without setting G1 explic
Looks good.
Mandy
> On Oct 5, 2016, at 8:47 AM, Erik Joelsson wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> Please review this small patch, which should fix an issue introduced by
> JDK-8166948. At least on Windows, running jmod on the exploded image may fail
> if the new optimization target is running concurrently
Erik:
On 10/05/16 08:51, Alan Bateman wrote:
On 05/10/2016 16:47, Erik Joelsson wrote:
Hello,
Please review this small patch, which should fix an issue introduced
by JDK-8166948. At least on Windows, running jmod on the exploded
image may fail if the new optimization target is running concur
On 05/10/2016 16:47, Erik Joelsson wrote:
Hello,
Please review this small patch, which should fix an issue introduced
by JDK-8166948. At least on Windows, running jmod on the exploded
image may fail if the new optimization target is running concurrently.
I had missed adjusting the dependenc
Hello,
Please review this small patch, which should fix an issue introduced by
JDK-8166948. At least on Windows, running jmod on the exploded image may
fail if the new optimization target is running concurrently. I had
missed adjusting the dependencies for the jmod targets.
Bug: https://bugs
That would be really great!
Could you please do it in the jdk9/hs forest as that's the place where
we will need it first (i.e. when integrating the whole s390 hotspot
platform files).
Thanks,
Volker
On Wed, Oct 5, 2016 at 5:07 PM, Erik Joelsson wrote:
> Looks ok to me. I can sponsor this tomorr
Looks ok to me. I can sponsor this tomorrow.
/Erik
On 2016-10-05 16:43, Volker Simonis wrote:
Hi,
can I please have a review and sponsor for the following tiny
top-level build change required for building the OpenJDK on
Linux/s390:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~simonis/webrevs/2016/s390x/81668
Looks good to me.
/Erik
On 2016-10-05 16:43, Volker Simonis wrote:
Hi,
can somebody please review the following trivial change which simply
adds a new jvm.cfg file for Linux/s390x:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~simonis/webrevs/2016/s390x/8166801/
https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-816680
Hi,
can somebody please review the following trivial change which simply
adds a new jvm.cfg file for Linux/s390x:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~simonis/webrevs/2016/s390x/8166801/
https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8166801
This is so far the only change we need in the jdk-repository for our
Hi,
can I please have a review and sponsor for the following tiny
top-level build change required for building the OpenJDK on
Linux/s390:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~simonis/webrevs/2016/s390x/8166800/
https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8166800
All this change does is to add some s390-spec
Looks good.
Thanks,
David
On 5/10/2016 9:54 PM, Erik Joelsson wrote:
Please review this fix of the copyright header in two makefiles, adding
the missing comma after the year.
Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8161018
Top level patch:
diff -r 278f9a9e9329 make/common/TextFileProce
Please review this fix of the copyright header in two makefiles, adding
the missing comma after the year.
Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8161018
Top level patch:
diff -r 278f9a9e9329 make/common/TextFileProcessing.gmk
--- a/make/common/TextFileProcessing.gmk
+++ b/make/common/Te
12 matches
Mail list logo
