Re: Initial JDK 11 RFR of JDK-8173382: Add -source 11 and -target 11 to javac - Java Bug System & JDK-8193291: Add SourceVersion.RELEASE_11

2017-12-13 Thread David Holmes
On 14/12/2017 1:51 PM, mark.reinh...@oracle.com wrote: 2017/12/13 15:49:53 -0800, paul.san...@oracle.com: On 13 Dec 2017, at 14:36, mark.reinh...@oracle.com wrote: I understand that other incoming changes are waiting for the 11 version bump, but can't we at least do the straightforward paramete

Re: Initial JDK 11 RFR of JDK-8173382: Add -source 11 and -target 11 to javac - Java Bug System & JDK-8193291: Add SourceVersion.RELEASE_11

2017-12-13 Thread mark . reinhold
2017/12/13 15:49:53 -0800, paul.san...@oracle.com: > On 13 Dec 2017, at 14:36, mark.reinh...@oracle.com wrote: >> I understand that other incoming changes are waiting for the 11 version >> bump, but can't we at least do the straightforward parameterizations and >> introduce _CURRENT constants in th

Re: Initial JDK 11 RFR of JDK-8173382: Add -source 11 and -target 11 to javac - Java Bug System & JDK-8193291: Add SourceVersion.RELEASE_11

2017-12-13 Thread joe darcy
Hi David, On 12/13/2017 5:16 PM, David Holmes wrote: Hi Joe, On 14/12/2017 4:36 AM, joe darcy wrote: There are various changes associated with a JDK N to (N+1) update including (but not limited to): 1) New -source/-target value in javac 2) Make new -source/-target value the defaul

Re: Initial JDK 11 RFR of JDK-8173382: Add -source 11 and -target 11 to javac - Java Bug System & JDK-8193291: Add SourceVersion.RELEASE_11

2017-12-13 Thread David Holmes
Hi Joe, On 14/12/2017 4:36 AM, joe darcy wrote: There are various changes associated with a JDK N to (N+1) update including (but not limited to):     1) New -source/-target value in javac     2) Make new -source/-target value the default in javac     3) Change build of the JDK to use new -s

Re: Initial JDK 11 RFR of JDK-8173382: Add -source 11 and -target 11 to javac - Java Bug System & JDK-8193291: Add SourceVersion.RELEASE_11

2017-12-13 Thread joe darcy
Hello, On 12/13/2017 1:18 PM, mark.reinh...@oracle.com wrote: 2017/12/13 8:44:33 -0800, paul.san...@oracle.com: On 12 Dec 2017, at 20:56, david.hol...@oracle.com wrote: [snip] Looking at Joe's webrev, many of the changes from 10 to 11 could instead be changed to Runtime.getRuntime().versi

Re: Initial JDK 11 RFR of JDK-8173382: Add -source 11 and -target 11 to javac - Java Bug System & JDK-8193291: Add SourceVersion.RELEASE_11

2017-12-13 Thread Paul Sandoz
> On 13 Dec 2017, at 14:36, mark.reinh...@oracle.com wrote: > > 2017/12/13 14:09:44 -0800, paul.san...@oracle.com: >>> On 13 Dec 2017, at 13:18, mark.reinh...@oracle.com wrote: >>> How much of this can we parameterize and/or automate? >> >> I suspect quite a bit, as you present below, and i agr

Re: Initial JDK 11 RFR of JDK-8173382: Add -source 11 and -target 11 to javac - Java Bug System & JDK-8193291: Add SourceVersion.RELEASE_11

2017-12-13 Thread mark . reinhold
2017/12/13 14:09:44 -0800, paul.san...@oracle.com: >> On 13 Dec 2017, at 13:18, mark.reinh...@oracle.com wrote: >> How much of this can we parameterize and/or automate? > > I suspect quite a bit, as you present below, and i agree we should try > and automate as much as possible. At the moment it’s

Re: Initial JDK 11 RFR of JDK-8173382: Add -source 11 and -target 11 to javac - Java Bug System & JDK-8193291: Add SourceVersion.RELEASE_11

2017-12-13 Thread Brian Goetz
Don't forget to add the new version to the list of validated versions in multi-release JARs... On 12/13/2017 1:36 PM, joe darcy wrote: There are various changes associated with a JDK N to (N+1) update including (but not limited to):     1) New -source/-target value in javac     2) Make new

Re: Initial JDK 11 RFR of JDK-8173382: Add -source 11 and -target 11 to javac - Java Bug System & JDK-8193291: Add SourceVersion.RELEASE_11

2017-12-13 Thread Paul Sandoz
> On 13 Dec 2017, at 13:18, mark.reinh...@oracle.com wrote: > > 2017/12/13 8:44:33 -0800, paul.san...@oracle.com: >>> On 12 Dec 2017, at 20:56, david.hol...@oracle.com wrote: >>> >>> Anyway, none of the proposed changes have any impact on hotspot >>> AFAICT. It is only when the actual version i

Re: Initial JDK 11 RFR of JDK-8173382: Add -source 11 and -target 11 to javac - Java Bug System & JDK-8193291: Add SourceVersion.RELEASE_11

2017-12-13 Thread mark . reinhold
2017/12/13 8:44:33 -0800, paul.san...@oracle.com: >> On 12 Dec 2017, at 20:56, david.hol...@oracle.com wrote: >> >> Anyway, none of the proposed changes have any impact on hotspot >> AFAICT. It is only when the actual version is updated to 11 that >> hotspot, and other entities will have to be upd

Re: Initial JDK 11 RFR of JDK-8173382: Add -source 11 and -target 11 to javac - Java Bug System & JDK-8193291: Add SourceVersion.RELEASE_11

2017-12-13 Thread Jonathan Gibbons
On 12/13/17 10:36 AM, joe darcy wrote: Hi David, On 12/12/2017 8:56 PM, David Holmes wrote: Hi Joe, On 13/12/2017 9:20 AM, joe darcy wrote: Hi David, On 12/12/2017 1:32 PM, David Holmes wrote: [snip] For background, what we've done in the past is at the very start of a new JDK

Re: Initial JDK 11 RFR of JDK-8173382: Add -source 11 and -target 11 to javac - Java Bug System & JDK-8193291: Add SourceVersion.RELEASE_11

2017-12-13 Thread joe darcy
Hi David, On 12/12/2017 8:56 PM, David Holmes wrote: Hi Joe, On 13/12/2017 9:20 AM, joe darcy wrote: Hi David, On 12/12/2017 1:32 PM, David Holmes wrote: [snip] For background, what we've done in the past is at the very start of a new JDK release, first create -source/-target ${N+

Re: Initial JDK 11 RFR of JDK-8173382: Add -source 11 and -target 11 to javac - Java Bug System & JDK-8193291: Add SourceVersion.RELEASE_11

2017-12-13 Thread Paul Sandoz
Joe, Here's a patch on top of your patch: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~psandoz/jdk/JDK-8173382-release-classfile-version/webrev/ Currently building/testing with both patches applied. Paul. > On 13 Dec

Re: Initial JDK 11 RFR of JDK-8173382: Add -source 11 and -target 11 to javac - Java Bug System & JDK-8193291: Add SourceVersion.RELEASE_11

2017-12-13 Thread Paul Sandoz
> On 12 Dec 2017, at 20:56, David Holmes wrote: > > Anyway, none of the proposed changes have any impact on hotspot AFAICT. It is > only when the actual version is updated to 11 that hotspot, and other > entities will have to be updated. I'm still unclear if someone is actually > driving the

Re: RFR(XXXS): 8193407: jdk/hs fails Solaris slowdebug test-image build

2017-12-13 Thread Daniel D. Daugherty
On 12/13/17 4:01 AM, Erik Joelsson wrote: On 2017-12-13 03:19, Daniel D. Daugherty wrote: On 12/12/17 9:16 PM, David Holmes wrote: Hi Dan, On 13/12/2017 12:13 PM, Daniel D. Daugherty wrote: Greetings, I have a 1-liner fix to solve a Solaris slowdebug test-image build problem: JDK-81934

Re: Why are hotspot tests not always linked with libc?

2017-12-13 Thread Magnus Ihse Bursie
On 2017-12-13 09:59, Erik Joelsson wrote: I agree that it should just always be added automatically when linking with solstudio. Agree. In fact, some of the common libraries, like pthread, that is not likely to cause problems if linked but not used, could probably be added as well to all librar

Re: Why are hotspot tests not always linked with libc?

2017-12-13 Thread Erik Joelsson
I agree that it should just always be added automatically when linking with solstudio. /Erik On 2017-12-12 22:16, David Holmes wrote: In make/test/JtregNativeHotspot.gmk we have this ever expanding list: ifeq ($(TOOLCHAIN_TYPE), solstudio)     BUILD_HOTSPOT_JTREG_LIBRARIES_LIBS_liboverflow :

Re: RFR(XXXS): 8193407: jdk/hs fails Solaris slowdebug test-image build

2017-12-13 Thread Erik Joelsson
On 2017-12-13 03:19, Daniel D. Daugherty wrote: On 12/12/17 9:16 PM, David Holmes wrote: Hi Dan, On 13/12/2017 12:13 PM, Daniel D. Daugherty wrote: Greetings, I have a 1-liner fix to solve a Solaris slowdebug test-image build problem: JDK-8193407 jdk/hs fails Solaris slowdebug test-im