On 06:25 Wed 13 Apr , Langer, Christoph wrote:
> Hi Andrew,
>
> > > > One dummy question:
> > > > Why do we need to specify the real package name here?
> > > > If we install gcc-10, I think apt system will pick up the latest gcc-10
> > > > for us.
> > >
> > > IIRC the intent is to keep contro
On 12:57 Wed 13 Apr , Magnus Ihse Bursie wrote:
> I disagree completely. We had it this way in mainline originally, but it
> was fixed in https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8256393.
>
Prior to this patch, it seems there were no GCC version requirements.
That's not what I'm suggesting.
On 09:22 Wed 23 Jun , David Holmes wrote:
> On 23/06/2021 5:38 am, Xin Liu wrote:
> > On Tue, 22 Jun 2021 17:20:14 GMT, Aleksey Shipilev
> > wrote:
> >
> >> It seems Ubuntu had bumped the version for GCC, so GHA started to fail
> >> with e.g.:
> >>
> >>
> >> The following packages have unme
On 14:09 Thu 10 Feb , Severin Gehwolf wrote:
>
> Latest webrev:
> https://cr.openjdk.java.net/~sgehwolf/webrevs/JDK-8210283/02/webrev/
>
> OK?
>
> Thanks,
> Severin
>
This looks fine. Please flag for approval.
Thanks,
--
Andrew :)
Pronouns: he / him or they / them
Senior Free Java Softwa
On 20:33 Thu 03 Feb , Severin Gehwolf wrote:
> On Wed, 2021-12-22 at 11:14 +0100, Severin Gehwolf wrote:
> > On Fri, 2021-12-10 at 15:11 +0100, Severin Gehwolf wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > Please review this adaptation of the corresponding JDK 11 patch. The
> > > JDK 11u patch didn't apply bec
On 09:19 Fri 14 Jan , Baesken, Matthias wrote:
> For one of the next jdk11 updates, an update to a more recent harfbuzz
> version is planned.
> This has been done already in jdk/jdk some time ago, and was backported
> recently to jdk13,
> please see the harfbuzz 2.7.2 / 2.8.0 related changes
On 15:17 Mon 30 Aug , Magnus Ihse Bursie wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> There is an open request[1] to bump the minimum GCC version from 5 to 6.
> We've traditionally been very conservative with supporting old GCC
> versions, but GCC 6 was released in 2016 (compared to GCC 5 in 2015),
> and I think t
On 11:22 Fri 18 Sep , Severin Gehwolf wrote:
> Hi Andrew,
>
> > Build is still broken for me with this patch:
> >
> > /usr/bin/cp /home/ahughes/builder/8u-dev/jdk/objs/java_objs/java.diz
> > /home/ahughes/builder/8u-dev/jdk/bin/java.diz
> > /usr/bin/cp: cannot stat
> > '/home/ahughes/builde
On 20:16 Wed 09 Sep , Severin Gehwolf wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Please review this 8u (jdk8u/jdk8u-dev tree) fix for JDK-8252395 that
> I've pushed today. Thanks for Zhengyu Gu for noticing it. The pushed
> fix added the java.debuginfo and unpack.debuginfo make targets on the
> condition of ENABLE_DEBU
On 18:29 Tue 08 Sep , Severin Gehwolf wrote:
snip...
>
> > Is any follow-on change for Windows necessary?
>
> I don't know as I don't have a way to test/develop it. It shouldn't
> make anything worse on the Windows side, though.
>
Yes, I can see that and have approved this fix for 8u now.
On 13:44 Mon 31 Aug , Severin Gehwolf wrote:
> Sorry, wrong webrev. Now corrected.
>
> On Mon, 2020-08-31 at 10:02 +0200, Severin Gehwolf wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > Could I get a reivew of this 8u specific bug please? When configured
> > --with-native-debug-symbols=external,zipped the resulting e
On 19/06/2020 14:41, Severin Gehwolf wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Could I get a review of this OpenJDK 11 specific patch? This same issue
> has been solved in OpenJDK 13 and better with JDK-8223319[1] which
> seems an unrelated issue to the fix of this bug. Also, I have tried
> applying the JDK 13 patch and i
On 07/05/2020 13:22, Severin Gehwolf wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Could I please get a review of this OpenJDK 8u backport for JDK-
> 8243059? The build system is wildly different to JDK 11 and later, thus
> is the patch. In turns out on JDK 8, SetupLauncher isn't using eval()
> so the evaluation of the com
On 08/05/2020 14:17, Severin Gehwolf wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Please review this OpenJDK 8u backport of JDK-8233880. It's a
> one-liner change which updates the toolchain.m4 code so as to
> recognize multi-digit GCC versions. For example Fedora 32 comes
> with GCC 10 and falls afoul this check. As a re
On 11/05/2020 08:58, Florian Weimer wrote:
> * Severin Gehwolf:
>
>> Thanks for the review! Yes, generated-configure.sh changes are due to
>> version skew of autoconf being used. I'll try to generate configure on
>> an older machine so as to avoid this before pushing. Does that sound
>> ok?
>
On 13/03/2020 09:32, Langer, Christoph wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I've regenerated this webrev as well:
> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~clanger/webrevs/8232748.11u/ (with JDK-8223678
> and JDK-8232572 applied)
>
> Patch content looks identical to the one already reviewed.
>
> I'd volunteer to push this
On 12/03/2020 10:25, Severin Gehwolf wrote:
> Hi Andrew,
>
> On Thu, 2020-02-27 at 15:43 +0100, Severin Gehwolf wrote:
>> On Thu, 2020-02-27 at 04:52 +, Andrew Hughes wrote:
>>> Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8232748
>>> Webrev: https://cr.o
On 28/02/2020 09:07, Volker Simonis wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 27, 2020 at 3:44 PM Severin Gehwolf wrote:
>>
>> Hi Andrew,
>>
>> On Thu, 2020-02-27 at 04:52 +, Andrew Hughes wrote:
>>> Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8232748
>>> Webrev:
On 27/02/2020 22:09, Simon Tooke wrote:
>
snip...
>>
>> I believe part of the problem here is newer versions of CLang. Could
>> some of that testing not be done with CLang on GNU/Linux, so more people
>> can participate in getting this fixed?
> A backport of 8019470, for example includes macos-s
On 27/02/2020 19:55, Simon Tooke wrote:
> I have not heard back, and had put this on the back burner for a while.
>
>
> Due to renewed interest expressed to me privately, I would like to
> resubmit this RFR, updated to the latest JDK and macOS build environment.
>
>
> Updated webrev:
> http:
On 26/02/2020 10:59, Volker Simonis wrote:
> Hi,
> I'd like to downport the support for Visual Studio Code project
> creation to 11u. I think we will have to support 11u for quite some
> years and it makes sense to have as good as possible tool support in
> 11u as well:
>
> https://bugs.openjdk.ja
On 30/12/2019 20:18, Volker Simonis wrote:
> Hi,
> I'd like to downport the support for Visual Studio Code project
> creation to 11u. I think we will have to support 11u for quite some
> years and it makes sense to have as good as possible tool support in
> 11u as well.
I just came across this
On Thu, 22 Aug 2019 at 09:52, Severin Gehwolf wrote:
>
> Hi Andrew,
>
> On Wed, 2019-08-21 at 20:33 +0100, Andrew John Hughes wrote:
> > This is the first of a series of four changes to support -Wreturn-type
> > in OpenJDK 8u. The -Wreturn-type warning catches instances where control
> > flow exit
On Thu, 24 Jan 2019 at 13:12, Magnus Ihse Bursie
wrote:
>
> The default binutils linker used by gcc, the bfd linker, is slow. The
> new replacement, gold, has been distributed alongside gcc for several
> years now, and is a well mature, and much faster, replacement.
>
> This issue is about replaci
On Wed, 5 Sep 2018 at 10:52, Leslie Zhai wrote:
>
> Hi Andrew,
>
> Thanks for your response!
>
> I just quote it from here:
>
> http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/build-dev/2016-July/017464.html
>
> I spotted that jsig is just a single C file and so doesn't
> need the -std flag. In fact, it co
On 17 July 2018 at 14:57, Severin Gehwolf wrote:
> Hi Andrew,
>
> On Sun, 2018-07-15 at 03:11 +0100, Andrew Hughes wrote:
>> On 6 July 2018 at 09:26, Severin Gehwolf wrote:
>> > Hi David,
>> >
>> > On Fri, 2018-07-06 at 11:53 +1000, David Holmes wrote
On 6 July 2018 at 09:26, Severin Gehwolf wrote:
> Hi David,
>
> On Fri, 2018-07-06 at 11:53 +1000, David Holmes wrote:
>> Hi Severin,
>>
>> On 6/07/2018 2:41 AM, Severin Gehwolf wrote:
>> > Hi,
>> >
>> > Please review this 8u-only change. JDK 10+ are not affected.
>> >
>> > For JDK 8 builds which
On 2 May 2018 at 13:43, Severin Gehwolf wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Could I please get a review for a fix which went into JDK 11 already.
> It reduces the maximum heap requirement for 32bit builds, which breaks
> s390 (31 bit) builds:
>
> + /usr/lib/jvm/java-openjdk/bin/java -Xms64M -Xmx1100M
> -XX:ThreadSt
On 26 April 2018 at 23:55, Kim Barrett wrote:
snip...
>
> I disagree, and still think the perfMemory_linux.cpp change should be
> removed.
>
> (1) The change to perfMemory_linux.cpp is entirely unnecessary to
> address the problem this bug is about.
>
> (2) It violates the (implied) protocol for
On 24 April 2018 at 20:17, Kim Barrett wrote:
>> On Apr 23, 2018, at 3:51 AM, Michal Vala wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> following discussion "RFR: build pragma error with gcc 4.4.7"[1], I'm
>> posting updated patch replacing deprecated readdir_r with readdir. Bug ID is
>> JDK-8179887 [2].
>>
>> webrev
On 23 April 2018 at 20:19, Kim Barrett wrote:
>> On Apr 21, 2018, at 11:18 AM, Andrew Hughes wrote:
>>
>> On 19 March 2018 at 23:23, Kim Barrett wrote:
>>> There are also problems with the patch as provided.
>>>
>>> (1) Since PRAGMA_DIAG_PUSH/POP do
On 19 March 2018 at 23:23, Kim Barrett wrote:
>> On Mar 16, 2018, at 6:48 AM, Michal Vala wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I've been trying to build latest jdk with gcc 4.4.7 and I hit compile error
>> due to pragma used in function:
>>
>> /mnt/ramdisk/openjdk/src/hotspot/os/linux/os_linux.inline.hpp:103:
On 16 March 2018 at 11:05, David Holmes wrote:
> Hi Michal,
>
> On 16/03/2018 8:48 PM, Michal Vala wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I've been trying to build latest jdk with gcc 4.4.7 and I hit compile
>> error due to pragma used in function:
>
>
> That's a very old gcc. Our "official" version is 4.9.2 but
- Original Message -
> Hi Erik,
>
> On 17-08-2016 12:23, Erik Joelsson wrote:
> > I'm sorry, you also need this patch, which I for some reason I can't
> > remember had in my local forest.
> >
> > diff -r a24702d4d5ab make/common/TestFilesCompilation.gmk
> > --- a/make/common/TestFilesCo
- Original Message -
> I'm seeing this patch fail across all platforms on internal builds.
> Please hold off any push for now. Maybe other config changes are needed
> on our build systems.
>
> e.g.
>
> > /opt/jprt/products/P1/SS12u1/SS12u1/prod/bin/CC
> > \
> > -m64
etime-dse -Werror conftest.cpp >&5
> configure:29966: $? = 0
> configure:29980: result: yes
> configure:29989: checking if both compilers support "-fno-lifetime-dse
> -Werror"
> configure:29994: result: yes
>
>
> > /Erik
> >
> > On 2016-07
- Original Message -
> Catching up ...
>
> On 11/07/2016 7:05 AM, Andrew Hughes wrote:
> >
> >
> > - Original Message -
> >>> On Jul 8, 2016, at 2:38 AM, Erik Joelsson
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Hello,
>
upports "-fno-lifetime-dse
-Werror"
configure:29966: /usr/bin/g++ -c -fno-lifetime-dse -Werror conftest.cpp >&5
configure:29966: $? = 0
configure:29980: result: yes
configure:29989: checking if both compilers support "-fno-lifetime-dse -Werror"
configure:29994: result: yes
- Original Message -
> > On Jul 8, 2016, at 2:38 AM, Erik Joelsson wrote:
> >
> > Hello,
> >
> > This looks good except for the change in toolchain.m4, which looks like it
> > might actually break cross compilation by overriding the value for
> > compiler version for the build compiler
- Original Message -
> > On Jul 7, 2016, at 1:48 PM, Andrew Hughes wrote:
> >>> Revised webrevs:
> >>>
> >>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~andrew/8156980/webrev.04/root
> >>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~andrew/8156
Webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~andrew/8u/8151841/webrev.01/
Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8151841
This is a backport of the original fix to support building OpenJDK
with GCC 6. It was necessary to cherry-pick parts of a number of
earlier fixes to make this work with the build
snip...
>
> > Revised webrevs:
> >
> > http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~andrew/8156980/webrev.04/root
> > http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~andrew/8156980/webrev.04/hotspot
>
> These look good to me.
>
Minor revision:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~andrew/8156980/webrev.05/root
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/
snip...
> > > I'm also now seeing a problem with GCC 6 only that is unique to the
> > > latest
> > > OpenJDK 9
> > > and what looks like the gtest code. It seems to be the result of the
> > > header
> > > changes
> > > also documented in [0] which were introduced in January [1] (and so
> > > proba
snip...
> >>
> >> What I'm worried about is that by keeping those checks we might get
> >> and use the wrong answer in some cases where the BUILD and TARGET
> >> compilers are of different vintage. Maybe that will just encourage
> >> someone to fix them...
> >
> > Thanks. I agree it's an issue
- Original Message -
> > On Jul 5, 2016, at 1:33 PM, Andrew Hughes wrote:
> >
> > - Original Message -
> >>> On Jul 5, 2016, at 11:22 AM, Andrew Hughes wrote:
> >> common/autoconf/flags.m4
> >> 716 $2JVM_CFLAGS="${$2JVM_C
- Original Message -
> > On Jul 5, 2016, at 11:22 AM, Andrew Hughes wrote:
> >
> > - Original Message -
> >> Hello,
> >>
> >> In general it looks good. It's nice to see that this also fixes that
> >> warning outpu
_JDK and friends.
Fixed in:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~andrew/8156980/webrev.02/
I'll let someone on your side push it through so you can regenerate
your internal configure script at the same time.
> Thanks for fixing this!
>
Thanks :)
> /Erik
>
> On 2016-07-05 07:27, Andrew Hughes
Webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~andrew/8156980/webrev.01/
Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8156980
With "8151841: Build needs additional flags to compile with GCC 6",
we added a number of compiler flags which were needed to build
OpenJDK with GCC 6. Checks for these flags were add
- Original Message -
> Looks good to me.
>
> /Erik
>
Thanks. Pushed:
http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk9/dev/rev/9d77f922d694
--
Andrew :)
Senior Free Java Software Engineer
Red Hat, Inc. (http://www.redhat.com)
PGP Key: ed25519/35964222 (hkp://keys.gnupg.net)
Fingerprint = 5132 579D D15
- Original Message -
> On 2016-03-16 05:25, Andrew Hughes wrote:
> > - Original Message -
> >> Hello,
> >>
> >> As representative for the build-infra group creating the new Hotspot
> >> build, I appreciate that the changes a
, feel
> free to clone build-infra/jdk9.
>
Thanks. I'll try and take a look.
> /Erik
>
> On 2016-03-15 05:18, Andrew Hughes wrote:
> > - Original Message -
> >>> On Mar 14, 2016, at 3:17 PM, Andrew Hughes wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Bug: ht
'm working on that now.
> David
> -
>
> On 15/03/2016 2:18 PM, Andrew Hughes wrote:
> > - Original Message -
> >>> On Mar 14, 2016, at 3:17 PM, Andrew Hughes wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8
- Original Message -
> > On Mar 14, 2016, at 3:17 PM, Andrew Hughes wrote:
> >
> > Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8151841
> > Webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~andrew/8151841/webrev.01/
> >
> > A number of additional flags need to
Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8151841
Webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~andrew/8151841/webrev.01/
A number of additional flags need to be passed to the C and C++ compiler
for OpenJDK to compile with GCC 6:
1. The C++ standard needs to be explicitly lowered to the old default of
- Original Message -
> On 2016-01-25 21:38, Andrew Hughes wrote:
> > - Original Message -
> >> Hello!
> >>
> >> When compiler is wrapped, the configure phase of build fails:
> >>
> >> [...]
> >> checking for gcc... /u
- Original Message -
> Hello!
>
> When compiler is wrapped, the configure phase of build fails:
>
> [...]
> checking for gcc... /usr/lib64/cscppc/gcc
> configure: Resolving CC (as /usr/lib64/cscppc/gcc) failed, using
> /usr/lib64/cscppc/gcc directly.
> checking resolved symbolic links for
- Original Message -
> Looks good.
>
> /Erik
>
Thanks Erik. Pushed:
http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk8u/jdk8u-dev/jdk/rev/92c6a16b6dac
> On 2016-01-06 20:12, Rob McKenna wrote:
> > cc'ing build-dev for a review and updating the subject.
> >
> >
- Original Message -
> On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 1:38 PM, Andrew Hughes wrote:
> > snip...
> >
> >> The new revision does that:
> >> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~asmundak/8073139/hotspot/webrev.03
> >> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~asmundak/8073139/jdk
snip...
> The new revision does that:
> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~asmundak/8073139/hotspot/webrev.03
> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~asmundak/8073139/jdk/webrev.03
> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~asmundak/8073139/root/webrev.03/
>
This has grown a lot from my version.
The main change seems to be
- Original Message -
> On Wed, 2015-11-18 at 13:19 -0500, Omair Majid wrote:
> > * Magnus Ihse Bursie [2015-11-18 13:15]:
> > > * Maybe the name of the flag should reflect the fact that we're
> > > talking about native debug information, and not the java classes. Or
> > > maybe that's
- Original Message -
> * Magnus Ihse Bursie [2015-11-18 13:15]:
> > * Maybe the name of the flag should reflect the fact that we're
> > talking about native debug information, and not the java classes. Or
> > maybe that's just understood..?
>
> Actually, I wouldn't mind at all if thi
- Original Message -
> Hello,
>
> I think this looks mostly OK, but I'm pretty sure Magnus will want to
> comment. I'm afraid he likely won't be able to until next week however.
>
> One thing, could you name the variable DEBUG_SYMBOLS, with the S at the
> end so that it matches the confi
tself
(the fourth argument is 'action-if-not-given' [0]), as I did
below, but it's not a huge thing.
[0]
https://www.gnu.org/software/autoconf/manual/autoconf-2.60/html_node/External-Software.html
>
> Thanks,
>
> Yasumasa
>
>
> On 2015/11/17 0:51, Andrew
- Original Message -
> * Yasumasa Suenaga [2015-11-16 04:38]:
> > I would like to propose JDK-8036003: Add
> > --with-debug-symbols=[none|internal|external|zipped] .
> >
> > I had posted this enhancement which provides new make variable [1].
> > But it does not fit current jdk 9. So I pro
- Original Message -
> On 2015-05-29 04:24, Andrew Hughes wrote:
>
>
>
> Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8081447 Webrev:
> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~andrew/8081447/webrev.01/ In testing a fix for
> [0], I found that system jpeg support seems
> t
- Original Message -
> Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8081447
> Webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~andrew/8081447/webrev.01/
>
> In testing a fix for [0], I found that system jpeg support seems
> to have bitrotted. Due to the movement of makefiles, it's hard
> to trace wher
Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8081447
Webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~andrew/8081447/webrev.01/
In testing a fix for [0], I found that system jpeg support seems
to have bitrotted. Due to the movement of makefiles, it's hard
to trace where this change occurred, but we have the c
- Original Message -
> [+distro-pkg-dev]
>
> On Mon, Mar 23, 2015 at 11:47 AM, Styx, Aaron (US SSA) <
> aaron.s...@baesystems.com> wrote:
>
> > I'm working on porting Java 7 (using IcedTea 2.5.4) to a new OS. I've
> > completed the build once, but when I install what was built to use as t
- Original Message -
> On 27/02/2015 11:25 AM, Andrew Hughes wrote:
> > - Original Message -
> >>
> >> On 26/02/2015 12:31 PM, David Holmes wrote:
> >>> On 26/02/2015 2:57 AM, Andrew Hughes wrote:
> >>>>>>> These ar
- Original Message -
>
> On 26/02/2015 12:31 PM, David Holmes wrote:
> > On 26/02/2015 2:57 AM, Andrew Hughes wrote:
> >>>>> These are the revised versions of the webrevs:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~a
- Original Message -
> I agreed with Volker, to the best of my knowledge AIX is Big Endian only
> and I know of no plan to change that.
>
> Regards,
> Tiago
>
> On Wed, 2015-02-25 at 16:25 +0100, Volker Simonis wrote:
> > On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 2:50 P
- Original Message -
> On 2015-02-23 15:57, Erik Joelsson wrote:
> > I think the jdk changes with ppc64le as CPU make sense.
>
> Jumping in a bit late in the discussion...
>
> I agree with Erik, having ppc64le as CPU seems the right way to go. I'm
> just wondering if you have checked the
- Original Message -
>
> On 2015-02-23 19:57, Andrew Hughes wrote:
> > - Original Message -
> >> I think the jdk changes with ppc64le as CPU make sense.
> >>
> >> Note that the changes to SoundDefs.h and SoundLibraries.gmk will be
ost it for you.
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >> David
> >>
> >> On 19/02/2015 1:02 PM, Tiago Sturmer Daitx wrote:
> >>> On Wed, 2015-02-18 at 07:33 -0500, Andrew Hughes wrote:
> >>>> I now have these changes working on 8u31:
> >&g
- Original Message -
> On Wed, 2015-02-18 at 07:33 -0500, Andrew Hughes wrote:
> > I now have these changes working on 8u31:
> >
> > http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~andrew/rh1191652/root
> > http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~andrew/rh1191652/jdk
> >
> > I can
>> Now hosted at:
> >>
> >> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~dholmes/ahughes-rh1191652-jdk9-webrev/
> >>
> >> David
> >>
> >> On 19/02/2015 1:35 PM, David Holmes wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Hi Tiago,
> >>>
> >>>
- Original Message -
> On 16/02/2015 3:44 PM, David Holmes wrote:
> > I have no issue with this minimal change for hotspot.
> >
> > I suppose I can also volunteer to sponsor it. :)
> >
> > Is the plan to also do the JDK changes under the same bug? That will
> > need build-dev involvement.
>
- Original Message -
> Hi Andrew,
>
> On 12/06/2014 3:03 AM, Andrew Hughes wrote:
> > - Original Message -
> >> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~dholmes/8041141/webrev/
> >>
> >> The recent changes to convert warnings to errors didn't
- Original Message -
> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~dholmes/8041141/webrev/
>
> The recent changes to convert warnings to errors didn't account for some
> type-punning warnings in our Embedded PPC build due to the use of
> strict-aliasing. Really we shouldn't be using strict-aliasing so thi
- Original Message -
> Hi Omair,
>
> This seems harmless for OPENJDK builds.
>
> David
>
> On 29/05/2014 9:33 AM, Omair Majid wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > Webrev:
> > http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~omajid/webrevs/8044235-src-zip-include-all/00/
> >
> > The src.zip file produced in an OpenJDK bu
- Original Message -
>
> On 2014-05-22 02:49, Omair Majid wrote:
> > * Andrew Hughes [2014-05-21 20:23]:
> >> - Original Message -
> >>> * Andrew Hughes [2014-05-21 12:22]:
> >>>> I'm not keen on the hardcoding of '-lj
- Original Message -
> * Andrew Hughes [2014-05-21 12:22]:
> > I'm not keen on the hardcoding of '-ljpeg'
> >
> > + LIBJPEG_LIBS := -ljpeg
>
> There's no pkg-config files for it. Any suggestions on how to get
> something generic?
>
- Original Message -
> Hi,
>
> Updated webrevs:
> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~omajid/webrevs/system-libjpeg/01/
> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~omajid/webrevs/system-libjpeg/01.jdk/
>
> * Anthony Petrov [2014-05-19 14:42]:
> > make/lib/Awt2dLibraries.gmk
> > >1236 LIBJPEG_CFLAGS :=
> >
- Original Message -
> On 2014-03-22 20:11, Omair Majid wrote:
>
> > Thanks. I wasn't sure how an empty value might be processed.
> Make can't really see the difference between an unassigned variable and
> one assigned to nothing. (Or, it can, but it's more tricky to check). In
> all the
- Original Message -
> Hi,
>
> * Phil Race [2014-03-19 12:39]:
> > On 3/17/2014 4:27 AM, Magnus Ihse Bursie wrote:
> > >While we generally support moving files to a proper location, if
> > >this move is causing trouble for Phil and the 2d team, we think it
> > >can be an acceptable exce
- Original Message -
> On 03/19/2014 01:51 PM, Magnus Ihse Bursie wrote:
> > On 2014-03-18 19:25, Andrew Haley wrote:
> >> On 03/18/2014 06:22 PM, Andrew Hughes wrote:
> >>> The intent was for #3 to cover this case (i.e. whatever Oracle does now)
> >&g
- Original Message -
> On 3/17/14 7:19 PM, Andrew Hughes wrote:
> > - Original Message -
> >> On 3/3/14 2:49 PM, Omair Majid wrote:
> >>> * David Holmes [2014-02-28 18:48]:
> >>>> There are three pieces to all of this:
> >>>
- Original Message -
> On 2014-03-18 02:19, Andrew Hughes wrote:
> > Do we need more than just the following three alternatives?
> >
> > #1. No debugging information at all.
> > #2. Debugging information left in the original binaries.
> > #3. Debugg
- Original Message -
> On 3/3/14 2:49 PM, Omair Majid wrote:
> > * David Holmes [2014-02-28 18:48]:
> >> There are three pieces to all of this:
> >>
> >> 1. Generating debug symbols in the binaries (via gcc -g or whatever)
> >> 2. Generating debuginfo files (zipped or not) (FDS)
> >> 3. St
- Original Message -
> On 2014-02-20 23:40, Omair Majid wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > The following is a preliminary webrev that allows OpenJDK to build and
> > run against a system-installed copy of lcms2 rather than the copy
> > bundled with OpenJDK:
> >
> > root: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~oma
- Original Message -
> Hi Omair,
>
> > Should I be pushing this to jdk9/dev ? (Or to jdk9/client?)
>
> If you change client code, then the fix should go to the client repo to
> avoid merge conflicts and allow for more manual testing prior to
> integrating the changes into the master repo.
- Original Message -
> * Erik Joelsson [2014-02-17 04:16]:
> > At least to me this looks good, but better let Magnus and Andrew
> > have their say too.
>
This looks fine.
> Feedback from an AWT expert would be appreciated too!
>
I'm not sure why this is needed, given it doesn't really
- Original Message -
> Hi,
>
> * Magnus Ihse Bursie [2014-02-12 17:49]:
> >
> > On 2014-02-12 18:47, Andrew Hughes wrote:
> > >>To be extremely clear: Andrew, do you object to bringing Omairs patch,
> > >>as it is, into OpenJDK?
> > &
- Original Message -
>
> On 2014-02-12 18:47, Andrew Hughes wrote:
> >> To be extremely clear: Andrew, do you object to bringing Omairs patch,
> >> as it is, into OpenJDK?
> >>
> > Yes.
>
> Okay then.
>
> I'll put a mental note t
- Original Message -
> On 2014-02-10 18:43, Andrew Hughes wrote:
> > You're already using it:
> >
> > PKG_CHECK_MODULES([LIBFFI], [libffi])
> >
> > Why that's in LIB_SETUP_STATIC_LINK_LIBSTDCPP, I have no idea.
> Because lib
- Original Message -
> On 2014-02-05 16:15, Omair Majid wrote:
> > * Andrew Hughes [2014-02-04 19:26]:
> >>> On 2014-02-03 18:43, Omair Majid wrote:
> >>>> The following webrevs modify the build system to allow building against
> >>>> t
- Original Message -
> * Andrew Hughes [2014-02-04 19:26]:
> > > On 2014-02-03 18:43, Omair Majid wrote:
> > > > The following webrevs modify the build system to allow building against
> > > > the system-installed copy of libpng as well
- Original Message -
>
> On 2014-02-03 18:43, Omair Majid wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > The following webrevs modify the build system to allow building against
> > the system-installed copy of libpng as well as using the bundled copy of
> > libpng
> >
> > ROOT: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~omaji
- Original Message -
> This looks good to me.
>
> 8015087: Provide debugging information for programs
>
> /Erik
>
Thanks. Pushed:
http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk8/build/rev/cb51fb4789ac
http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk8/build/jdk/rev/f559fadbf491
> On 2013-05-21
- Original Message -
> On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 9:00 PM, Andrew Haley wrote:
>
> > On 05/21/2013 04:55 PM, Volker Simonis wrote:
> >
> > > I always felt that having the build instructions checked in into the
> > > repository is somewhat to heavyweight.
> >
> > There are two good reasons to
1 - 100 of 204 matches
Mail list logo
