Hi Magnus,
herein I will be talking only about 1st two warnings.
although your analyze is correct, it doesn't take into account the fact that
the warnings report situations that can't happen in current codebase, and gcc
doesn't report them in our "regular" builds b/c it can proof that
- in
Looks ok to me (and same caveat as Magnus).
/Erik
On 2018-08-31 06:59, Maurizio Cimadamore wrote:
Thanks for the reviews; once again, when doing some more testing I
discovered some issues which had to do with coexistence with the
intellij jtreg plugin.
The bottom of the issue is that
On 2018-08-31 01:20, Magnus Ihse Bursie wrote:
These are two different arguments for turning off warnings for code
coverage:
1) gcc is producing incorrect warnings
2) the warnings might be correct, but we are going to treat such bugs
as low priority
I understand and accept 1, but I do not
Hello,
On 2018-08-31 00:38, Lindenmaier, Goetz wrote:
Hi,
https://wiki.openjdk.java.net/display/Build/Supported+Build+Platforms
is quite outdated, listing only jdk9.
Is there a different site now listing this information?
No, we are just bad at keeping it up to date. Oracle's platforms for 11
On Fri, 2018-08-31 at 13:42 +0200, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
> On 08/31/2018 01:40 PM, Magnus Ihse Bursie wrote:
> > Yes, that looks reasonable! If you want to, you can push this + Klose's
> > fix.
>
> Is there a bug in the JBS I can reference?
On Aug 31, 2018, at 2:28 AM, Magnus Ihse Bursie
wrote:
>> Magnus, Philip, Brian, Goetz, can we have a vote? => "Fix" or
>> "DisableWarnings" ?
>
> Note that this decision can be different for the two libraries. I'd argue
> that the maintainer of each library decides. And if so, it seems to
Thanks for the reviews; once again, when doing some more testing I
discovered some issues which had to do with coexistence with the
intellij jtreg plugin.
The bottom of the issue is that certain IDE owned ant variable (such as
$ModuleFileDir$) are only set when clicking on certain IDE
On 08/31/2018 01:40 PM, Magnus Ihse Bursie wrote:
> Yes, that looks reasonable! If you want to, you can push this + Klose's fix.
Is there a bug in the JBS I can reference?
Adrian
--
.''`. John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
: :' : Debian Developer - glaub...@debian.org
`. `' Freie Universitaet
Yes, that looks reasonable! If you want to, you can push this + Klose's fix.
/Magnus
> 31 aug. 2018 kl. 13:25 skrev John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
> :
>
> Hi Magnus!
>
> I just tested it and the following change in make/autoconf/flags.m4 is
> necessary as well so that gcc is not called with
Hi Magnus!
I just tested it and the following change in make/autoconf/flags.m4 is
necessary as well so that gcc is not called with "-m64":
diff -r 18afb2097ada -r 1f28530b1f46 make/autoconf/flags.m4
--- a/make/autoconf/flags.m4Fri Aug 31 11:43:06 2018 +0200
+++ b/make/autoconf/flags.m4
Hi Magnus,
Ok, I understand, isGraalEnabled is a runtime check, not a
check what was set at compile time of the JVM. And the
two tier-4 comilers can be there both.
So I understand the check in the test.
Thanks,
Goetz
> -Original Message-
> From: Magnus Ihse Bursie
> Sent: Freitag,
On 2018-08-31 11:39, Lindenmaier, Goetz wrote:
Hi,
I'm just fixing jtreg/runtime/appcds/sharedStrings/IncompatibleOptions.java
It is not checking correctly whether ZGC is enabled.
I found this code in the test:
if (!Compiler.isGraalEnabled()) { // Graal does not support CMS
testExec(8,
Hi,
I'm just fixing jtreg/runtime/appcds/sharedStrings/IncompatibleOptions.java
It is not checking correctly whether ZGC is enabled.
I found this code in the test:
if (!Compiler.isGraalEnabled()) { // Graal does not support CMS
testExec(8, "-XX:+UseConcMarkSweepGC", "", "", false);
}
I
On 2018-08-31 11:14, Andrew Leonard wrote:
Hi,
So there seems to be varying opinion here, taking the 2D view point
since it is going to be maintained, the opinion seems to be more with
the fix (http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~aleonard/8209786/webrev.00/
On 08/31/2018 11:19 AM, Magnus Ihse Bursie wrote:
> Hah! That's exactly the same patch as I derived. :-)
Great.
> So that means, I assume, that the patch has been tested properly? If so I'll
> just sponsor and push it.
(sid-x32-sbuild)root@epyc:/# file /usr/lib/jvm/java-11-openjdk-x32/bin/java
On 2018-08-31 10:57, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
On 08/31/2018 10:43 AM, Magnus Ihse Bursie wrote:
I adjusted the patch to the current code base (which means that most parts of
it were not needed). What remains are two files. However, I can't test if this
works. Matthias, can you
Hi,
So there seems to be varying opinion here, taking the 2D view point since
it is going to be maintained, the opinion seems to be more with the fix (
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~aleonard/8209786/webrev.00/). This would be my
personal preference also, but previous comments seemed to prefer
On 08/31/2018 10:57 AM, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
> On 08/31/2018 10:43 AM, Magnus Ihse Bursie wrote:
>> I adjusted the patch to the current code base (which means that most parts
>> of it were not needed). What remains are two files. However, I can't test if
>> this works. Matthias, can
On 08/31/2018 10:43 AM, Magnus Ihse Bursie wrote:
> I adjusted the patch to the current code base (which means that most parts of
> it were not needed). What remains are two files. However, I can't test if
> this works. Matthias, can you verify that this is a working patch for jdk/jdk
> for the
The necroposter strikes back! :-)
I'm currently trying to fix or close all long standing bugs on
infrastructure/build, and now the time has come to JDK-8165440.
This patch had a bit of bad timing when it was posted, since it could
not be accepted into mainline due to feature freeze, and
On 2018-08-31 01:28, Philip Race wrote:
Some day, I'd like to replace a lot of medialib functionality with
something
like the proposed Vector API. But that is far enough away that
medialib needs
to be maintained, and unlike a previous discussion about a similar
issue in
the JPEG library, we
There are two aspects here that sound similar, but is not:
Erik says:
On Aug 30, 2018, at 6:26 AM, Erik Joelsson wrote:
I shared your opinion at first while discussing this offline with Leonid. What
changed my mind was the claim that the warnings cannot be truly trusted when
GCC is
Hi,
https://wiki.openjdk.java.net/display/Build/Supported+Build+Platforms
is quite outdated, listing only jdk9.
Is there a different site now listing this information?
(I'll also update our information on this site.)
Because of https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8210194
we think about
On 2018-08-30 17:12, Maurizio Cimadamore wrote:
Hi,
this patch adds proper support for -o option to the idea.sh script,
which allows to place the .idea folder under any given output folder
(not necessarily the JDK root).
To be able to do this, I had to revampo the logic for template
Hi Leonard,
Whom should I add as reviewers? (Besides me :))
Best regards,
Goetz.
> -Original Message-
> From: Andrew Leonard
> Sent: Donnerstag, 30. August 2018 17:02
> To: Lindenmaier, Goetz
> Cc: Brian Burkhalter ; build-dev (build-
> d...@openjdk.java.net) ; core-libs-
>
25 matches
Mail list logo
