Re: RFR: JDK-8189094: Change required boot jdk to JDK 9

2017-10-16 Thread Alan Bateman
On 16/10/2017 19:53, Martin Buchholz wrote: What's the canonical way to list all upgradeable modules? There's a list in JEP 261, but naturally we can't consider it authoritative. make/common/Modules.gmk has the list (look for UPGRADEABLE_MODULES and UPGRADEABLE_TOOL_MODULES). I was surprise

Re: RFR: JDK-8189094: Change required boot jdk to JDK 9

2017-10-16 Thread Jonathan Gibbons
On 10/16/17 11:53 AM, Martin Buchholz wrote: What's the canonical way to list all upgradeable modules? There's a list in JEP 261, but naturally we can't consider it authoritative. I was surprised that even java --describe-module doesn't tell me whether a module is upgradeable. I was surprised t

Re: RFR: JDK-8189094: Change required boot jdk to JDK 9

2017-10-16 Thread Martin Buchholz
What's the canonical way to list all upgradeable modules? There's a list in JEP 261, but naturally we can't consider it authoritative. I was surprised that even java --describe-module doesn't tell me whether a module is upgradeable. I was surprised to see JEP 261 say that java.compiler is upgrade

Re: RFR: JDK-8189094: Change required boot jdk to JDK 9

2017-10-16 Thread Martin Buchholz
Obviously y'all have the engineering resources to do any shoe-horning necessary to get jdk9 to run jdk10 langtools. But consider that this is the sort of thing users will be doing as well. It seems very natural to decouple langtools from its host jdk; at Google we often run langtools hosted in th

Re: RFR: JDK-8189094: Change required boot jdk to JDK 9

2017-10-16 Thread Alan Bateman
On 16/10/2017 16:41, Martin Buchholz wrote: The difficulties encountered trying to run langtools10 in a jdk9 suggests that the jdk9 module model is too restrictive. I've long lobbied for treating langtools as just another collection of ordinary programs that happen to be written in java and shou

Re: RFR: JDK-8189094: Change required boot jdk to JDK 9

2017-10-16 Thread Martin Buchholz
The difficulties encountered trying to run langtools10 in a jdk9 suggests that the jdk9 module model is too restrictive. I've long lobbied for treating langtools as just another collection of ordinary programs that happen to be written in java and should not need special support from the host jdk.

RFR: JDK-8189094: Change required boot jdk to JDK 9

2017-10-16 Thread Erik Joelsson
With JDK 9 released, it's high time to change the required boot jdk for building JDK 10. This time, the change wasn't as straight forward as it usually is. It's currently possible to use any of JDK 8, 9 or a recent build of 10 to boot the JDK 10 build. This support is however fragile. The most

Re: RFR: 8171853: Remove Shark compiler

2017-10-16 Thread Erik Joelsson
That looks correct. Thanks! /Erik On 2017-10-16 12:26, Roman Kennke wrote: Hi Erik, You mean like this? http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~rkennke/8171853/webrev.04.diff/ Full webrev here: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~rkennke/817185

Re: RFR: 8171853: Remove Shark compiler

2017-10-16 Thread Roman Kennke
Hi Erik, You mean like this? http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~rkennke/8171853/webrev.04.diff/ Full webrev here: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~rkennke/8171853/webrev.04/ Than

Re: RFR: JDK-8189324: install-file macro no longer handles files with $ in them

2017-10-16 Thread Magnus Ihse Bursie
On 2017-10-16 11:34, Erik Joelsson wrote: In my recent change for JDK-8189095, I changed the quoting of all src and targets files in the install-macros from single to double. I did this in an early version of that patch to allow for the shell to match the ? wildcard. In the final version of the

RFR: JDK-8189324: install-file macro no longer handles files with $ in them

2017-10-16 Thread Erik Joelsson
In my recent change for JDK-8189095, I changed the quoting of all src and targets files in the install-macros from single to double. I did this in an early version of that patch to allow for the shell to match the ? wildcard. In the final version of the patch, I instead use explicit subst of ?

Re: RFR: 8171853: Remove Shark compiler

2017-10-16 Thread Magnus Ihse Bursie
On 2017-10-16 10:24, Erik Joelsson wrote: Hello Roman, In hotspot.m4, I believe the check on line 328 (pre changes) is still relevant for just the zero case. Yes, it is indeed. Otherwise build changes look good to me. Agree, looks good. /Magnus /Erik On 2017-10-16 00:00, Roman Kennke

Re: RFR: 8171853: Remove Shark compiler

2017-10-16 Thread Erik Joelsson
Hello Roman, In hotspot.m4, I believe the check on line 328 (pre changes) is still relevant for just the zero case. Otherwise build changes look good to me. /Erik On 2017-10-16 00:00, Roman Kennke wrote: Ok, I fixed all the comments you mentioned. Differential (against webrev.01): http:/