Only -deprecation still results in build failure :( I'll go with what
I've now to push the change before the deadline -- and we can revisit
better makefile option in a future patch.
Thanks,
-Sundar
On 27/06/18, 9:29 PM, Erik Joelsson wrote:
If it's just deprecation you want to remove, then
Mark-
Looks good to me as well.
Tim
On 06/27/18 15:33, Erik Joelsson wrote:
Looks good.
/Erik
On 2018-06-27 15:08, mark.reinh...@oracle.com wrote:
Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8205956
Webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~mr/rev/8205956/
Erik:
Looks good to me as well.
/Tim
On 06/27/18 15:32, Lance Andersen wrote:
I can verify the patch worked for me Erik
Best
Lance
On Jun 27, 2018, at 6:29 PM, Erik Joelsson wrote:
For some users, the build fails with:
dirname: illegal option -- s
usage: dirname path
usage: basename
Looks good.
/Erik
On 2018-06-27 15:08, mark.reinh...@oracle.com wrote:
Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8205956
Webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~mr/rev/8205956/
Quick links to handier HTML diffs:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~mr/rev/8205956/doc/building.html.hdiff.html
I can verify the patch worked for me Erik
Best
Lance
> On Jun 27, 2018, at 6:29 PM, Erik Joelsson wrote:
>
> For some users, the build fails with:
>
> dirname: illegal option -- s
> usage: dirname path
> usage: basename string [suffix]
>basename [-a] [-s suffix] string [...]
> error:
For some users, the build fails with:
dirname: illegal option -- s
usage: dirname path
usage: basename string [suffix]
basename [-a] [-s suffix] string [...]
error: cannot read file
Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8205956
Webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~mr/rev/8205956/
Quick links to handier HTML diffs:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~mr/rev/8205956/doc/building.html.hdiff.html
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~mr/rev/8205956/doc/testing.html.hdiff.html
Hi Jon,
On 6/27/2018 12:50 PM, Jonathan Gibbons wrote:
Joe,
javac Source.java
83
84 /** 1.11 covers the to be determined language features that
will be added in JDK 11. */
85 JDK11("11"),
86
87 /** 12 covers the to be determined language features that
will be added
+1
Mandy
On 6/27/18 12:48 PM, Daniel Fuchs wrote:
Hi,
My fix for 8205397 [1] includes a change to
make/gensrc/Gensrc-jdk.hotspot.agent.gmk that was not intended:
diff --git a/make/gensrc/Gensrc-jdk.hotspot.agent.gmk
b/make/gensrc/Gensrc-jdk.hotspot.agent.gmk
---
Looks good to me.
/Erik
On 2018-06-27 12:50, Daniel Fuchs wrote:
[resending with correct subject]
Hi,
https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8205945
8205945: Revert unintended changes to
make/gensrc/Gensrc-jdk.hotspot.agent.gmk
My fix for 8205397 [1] includes a change to
Looks OK to me, although I don't normally review hotspot or build changes.
-- Jon
On 6/27/18 12:50 PM, Daniel Fuchs wrote:
[resending with correct subject]
Hi,
https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8205945
8205945: Revert unintended changes to
make/gensrc/Gensrc-jdk.hotspot.agent.gmk
Oops, I missed your reply. Will commit now.
Submit repo also passed without problems.
Adrian
On 06/26/2018 04:51 PM, Erik Joelsson wrote:
> Correct.
>
> /Erik
>
>
> On 2018-06-26 07:35, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
>> Hi Erik!
>>
>> Thanks!
>>
>> I assume since this affects the build
Joe,
javac Source.java
83
84 /** 1.11 covers the to be determined language features that will be
added in JDK 11. */
85 JDK11("11"),
86
87 /** 12 covers the to be determined language features that will be
added in JDK 12. */
88 JDK12("12");
It would be nice if the
[resending with correct subject]
Hi,
https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8205945
8205945: Revert unintended changes to
make/gensrc/Gensrc-jdk.hotspot.agent.gmk
My fix for 8205397 [1] includes a change to
make/gensrc/Gensrc-jdk.hotspot.agent.gmk that was not intended:
diff --git
Hi,
My fix for 8205397 [1] includes a change to
make/gensrc/Gensrc-jdk.hotspot.agent.gmk that was not intended:
diff --git a/make/gensrc/Gensrc-jdk.hotspot.agent.gmk
b/make/gensrc/Gensrc-jdk.hotspot.agent.gmk
--- a/make/gensrc/Gensrc-jdk.hotspot.agent.gmk
+++
Thanks Erik!
-katya
On 6/27/18 8:36 AM, Erik Joelsson wrote:
On 2018-06-27 00:29, Ekaterina Pavlova wrote:
well, INCLUDE_GRAAL is not defined at the time we run tests.
I can try to guard by something like
ifeq ($(OPENJDK_TARGET_OS)-$(OPENJDK_TARGET_CPU), $(filter
If it's just deprecation you want to remove, then
-Xlint:all,-deprecation should be enough to add. The current argument
for jdk.scripting.nashorn is -Xlint:all (if I'm not mistaken).
/Erik
On 2018-06-27 08:59, Sundararajan Athijegannathan wrote:
Hi Erik,
Yes, nashorn is warning free afaik.
Hi Erik,
Yes, nashorn is warning free afaik. Besides nashorn is being deprecated.
No further development expected other than perhaps occasional bug fixes.
We need to disable javac deprecation warnings. Without this javac
deprecation warnings cause build failure.
-Sundar
On 27/06/18, 9:11
Looks ok to me.
/Erik
On 2018-06-27 03:26, Volker Simonis wrote:
Hi,
can I please have a review for the following tiny test fix (I'm
actually not sure which would be the appropriate mailing list for this
fix so please redirect if necessary):
Hello Sundar,
Adding $(DISABLE_WARNINGS) disables a lot of warnings. Isn't
jdk.scripting.nashorn pretty much warning frree now? What warnings do
you really need to disable?
/Erik
On 2018-06-26 21:19, Sundararajan Athijegannathan wrote:
Forgot to CC build-dev for makefile changes.
-Sundar
On 2018-06-27 00:29, Ekaterina Pavlova wrote:
well, INCLUDE_GRAAL is not defined at the time we run tests.
I can try to guard by something like
ifeq ($(OPENJDK_TARGET_OS)-$(OPENJDK_TARGET_CPU), $(filter
$(OPENJDK_TARGET_OS)-$(OPENJDK_TARGET_CPU),linux-x64 macosx-x64
windows-x64))
but I
Looks good to me!
On Wed, Jun 27, 2018 at 3:26 AM, Volker Simonis
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> can I please have a review for the following tiny test fix (I'm
> actually not sure which would be the appropriate mailing list for this
> fix so please redirect if necessary):
>
>
Hi,
can I please have a review for the following tiny test fix (I'm
actually not sure which would be the appropriate mailing list for this
fix so please redirect if necessary):
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~simonis/webrevs/2018/8205916/
https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8205916
The test
Looks good.
Hannes
> Am 27.06.2018 um 06:19 schrieb Sundararajan Athijegannathan
> :
>
> Forgot to CC build-dev for makefile changes.
>
> -Sundar
>
> On 27/06/18, 9:46 AM, Sundararajan Athijegannathan wrote:
>> Please review.
>>
>> Bug https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8204492
>>
On 6/26/18 9:08 AM, Ekaterina Pavlova wrote:
Hello Magnus,
On 6/26/18 12:50 AM, Magnus Ihse Bursie wrote:
23 juni 2018 kl. 00:22 skrev Ekaterina Pavlova mailto:ekaterina.pavl...@oracle.com>>:
Fixed and regenerated webrev at the same location:
Thank you very much, David. I will do the test-repeat run of the tests
(after a temp fix to enable OSX runs on Mach5 (JDK-8199700)).
Thanks,
Jini.
On 6/27/2018 12:02 PM, David Holmes wrote:
Hi Jini,
I took a look ... that's about all I can say :)
I know that you and Sharath have worked
Hi Jini,
I took a look ... that's about all I can say :)
I know that you and Sharath have worked through this in detail over an
extended period of time, so I'm okay to add my Reviewed stamp to it.
About the only thing I'd suggest, if not already done, is to do a mach5
run only on OSX with
27 matches
Mail list logo
