On Wed, 3 Nov 2021 11:54:39 GMT, Aleksey Shipilev wrote:
> [JDK-8182285](https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8182285) added the
> incremental build capabilities for modules, by hashing the APIs of each
> module.
>
> The original change uses MD5, which is quite weak, and
> [JDK-8214483](h
On Tue, 26 Oct 2021 08:25:35 GMT, Jiří Vaněk wrote:
>> The run targets of makefile to run J2DBench.jar/J2DAnalyzer.jar were
>> lacking the dist directory. This patch is fixing it. Note, that
>> build.xml have correct paths
>
> Jiří Vaněk has refreshed the contents of this pull request, and previo
On Thu, 21 Oct 2021 17:04:08 GMT, Jiří Vaněk wrote:
> The run targets of makefile to run J2DBench.jar/J2DAnalyzer.jar were
> lacking the dist directory. This patch is fixing it. Note, that
> build.xml have correct paths
I've filed https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8275872 and am happy to
On Tue, 16 Mar 2021 16:56:22 GMT, Phil Race wrote:
>> From a build perspective this partially reverts
>> https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8249821 except that it keeps
>> the harfbuzz sources separate and still supports building and running
>> against a system harfbuzz which is only of
On Tue, 16 Mar 2021 16:56:22 GMT, Phil Race wrote:
>> From a build perspective this partially reverts
>> https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8249821 except that it keeps
>> the harfbuzz sources separate and still supports building and running
>> against a system harfbuzz which is only of
On Thu, 9 Sep 2021 14:31:19 GMT, Magnus Ihse Bursie wrote:
>> Currently, the build system defaults the libjvm.so location to "server".
>> This makes looking for `libjvm.so` awkward, see JDK-8273487 for example. We
>> need to see if moving the libjvm.so to a proper location breaks anything.
>>
On Thu, 22 Jul 2021 16:43:26 GMT, Severin Gehwolf wrote:
> Hi!
>
> Please review this tiny patch which removes the special casing of
> `--with-native-debug-symbols=external` for the static libs build. I don't see
> why this is needed. If no debug symbols are wanted
> `--with-native-debug-symb
On Wed, 20 Jan 2021 04:29:52 GMT, Andrew John Hughes wrote:
> The latest GCC fails if -fcf-protection is used with an x86 (32-bit) target
> that doesn't support CMOV:
>
> https://gcc.gnu.org/git/?p=gcc.git;a=blobdiff;f=gcc/config/i386/i386-options.c;h=a70f6edf7b0bfa6994db372
The latest GCC fails if -fcf-protection is used with an x86 (32-bit) target
that doesn't support CMOV:
https://gcc.gnu.org/git/?p=gcc.git;a=blobdiff;f=gcc/config/i386/i386-options.c;h=a70f6edf7b0bfa6994db372c2507dbacb5526646;hp=6819a04238965f0ad63b10323823caa2fb8b147c;hb=77d372abec0fbf2cfe922e314
On Tue, 13 Oct 2020 11:32:54 GMT, Kiran Sidhartha Ravikumar
wrote:
>> Looks good. I think we should release-note the removal of the
>> "US/Pacific-New" Link on the off chance that some
>> production/testing system is looking for such a zone.
>
> Thanks for the review everyone, I have added a re
On 13/02/2020 11:48, Baesken, Matthias wrote:
> Ping - any reviews ?
>
> Thanks, Matthias
>
> From: Baesken, Matthias
> Sent: Dienstag, 11. Februar 2020 10:24
> To: jdk-updates-...@openjdk.java.net; 'build-dev@openjdk.java.net'
>
> Subject: RFR [jdk11]: 8234525: enable link-time section-gc f
On 27/09/2019 16:48, Severin Gehwolf wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Could I please get a review of this 8u build change backport which adds
> --with-extra-asflags to OpenJDK 8u. At Red Hat, we need to pass certain
> assembler only flags for some builds. For example "-Wa,--generate-
> missing-build-notes=yes"
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 exits a non-void function without returning a value. This can
combine with compiler optimisations in some cases to cause runtime
crashes. The warning
On 30/07/2019 09:48, Andrew Dinn wrote:
> On 29/07/2019 19:30, Aleksey Shipilev wrote:
>> On 7/29/19 7:37 PM, Severin Gehwolf wrote:
>>> So, in light of the changed build system in JDK 9+, and the rather
>>> small changes in this patch (on the grand scheme of things), it seems
>>> reasonable to imp
On 29/07/2019 11:10, Severin Gehwolf wrote:
> On Mon, 2019-07-29 at 10:19 +0100, Andrew Dinn wrote:
>> On 26/07/2019 18:32, Andrew John Hughes wrote:
>>> On 26/07/2019 16:53, Severin Gehwolf wrote:
> [...]
>>>>
>>>>> What exactly is being push
On 26/07/2019 16:53, Severin Gehwolf wrote:
> Hi Andrew,
>
> On Fri, 2019-07-26 at 14:46 +0100, Andrew John Hughes wrote:
>> On 25/07/2019 16:02, Severin Gehwolf wrote:
>>
>> snip...
>>
>>>> Done now. I've added fix-request comments/labels to t
On 25/07/2019 16:02, Severin Gehwolf wrote:
snip...
>>
>> Done now. I've added fix-request comments/labels to the above bugs and
>> rebased on top of them. New jdk changeset:
>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~sgehwolf/webrevs/JDK-8222737/04/jdk/webrev/
>>
>> Test groups definition is the JDK 9 set p
On 10/07/2019 10:24, Severin Gehwolf wrote:
> Hi Christoph,
>
> On Wed, 2019-07-10 at 09:08 +, Langer, Christoph wrote:
>> Hi Severin,
>>
>> You made a little mistake. It must be "-xO4" instead of "-x04" in the
>> Solaris build file (It's the letter O instead of the number 0) 😉
>
> Sigh. T
On 28/06/2019 10:52, Severin Gehwolf wrote:
> Hi Andrew,
>
> On Thu, 2019-06-27 at 17:36 +0100, Andrew John Hughes wrote:
>>
>> On 22/05/2019 17:34, Severin Gehwolf wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> Could I please get reviews for this minimal implementati
On 22/05/2019 17:34, Severin Gehwolf wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Could I please get reviews for this minimal implementation of a tier1-
> like test set for JDK 8u? The implementation is rather barebones as I
> don't think it's worth rewriting the build system just for a command
> that runs a certain set o
On 26/06/2019 14:02, Severin Gehwolf wrote:
> On Wed, 2019-06-26 at 13:04 +0100, Andrew John Hughes wrote:
>>
>> On 25/06/2019 10:04, Severin Gehwolf wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> Could somebody please review this 8u backport? The build system in 8 is
>>
On 25/06/2019 10:04, Severin Gehwolf wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Could somebody please review this 8u backport? The build system in 8 is
> different, especially hotspot makefiles. Note, libjsig.so is part of
> the hotspot build. The patch is different in 8 (over 11) due to this
> reason. This is a Linux-o
On 24/06/2019 15:52, Florian Weimer wrote:
> * Andrew John Hughes:
>
>> On 24/06/2019 14:54, Florian Weimer wrote:
>>> * Severin Gehwolf:
>>>
>>>> Could I please get reviews for this 8u only change? The JDK 8u build
>>>> logic for laun
On 24/06/2019 14:48, Severin Gehwolf wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Could I please get reviews for this 8u only change? The JDK 8u build
> logic for launcher files includes linker version script files (a.k.a
> mapfiles). The script file for x86 (32bit) marks symbol _IO_stdin_used
> as local. When the symbol
On 24/06/2019 14:54, Florian Weimer wrote:
> * Severin Gehwolf:
>
>> Could I please get reviews for this 8u only change? The JDK 8u build
>> logic for launcher files includes linker version script files (a.k.a
>> mapfiles). The script file for x86 (32bit) marks symbol _IO_stdin_used
>> as local
On 12/06/2019 20:34, Andrew John Hughes wrote:
> Webrev: https://cr.openjdk.java.net/~andrew/openjdk8/8223219/webrev.01/
> Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8223219
>
> There's quite a long story to this one, more detail of which is in the
> bug report. In sh
Webrev: https://cr.openjdk.java.net/~andrew/openjdk8/8223219/webrev.01/
Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8223219
There's quite a long story to this one, more detail of which is in the
bug report. In short, JDK-8199552 was backported as part of a CPU with
no review and so little explan
On 29/03/2019 10:51, Langer, Christoph wrote:
> Looks good to me now 😊
>
>> -Original Message-----
>> From: Andrew John Hughes
>> Sent: Freitag, 29. März 2019 07:18
>> To: Langer, Christoph ; Severin Gehwolf
>> ; 'jdk8u-...@openjdk.java
On 28/03/2019 09:30, Langer, Christoph wrote:
> Hi,
>
>>> Revised HotSpot webrev:
>>>
>>> https://cr.openjdk.java.net/~andrew/openjdk8/8189761/hotspot.02
>>
>> +++ new/src/share/vm/runtime/vm_version.cpp 2019-03-28
>> 03:52:51.384737947 +
>> @@ -140,7 +140,7 @@
>>
>> const char* Abstract_
On 28/03/2019 08:51, Severin Gehwolf wrote:
> On Thu, 2019-03-28 at 03:56 +0000, Andrew John Hughes wrote:
>> On 26/03/2019 21:57, Langer, Christoph wrote:
>>> Hi Andrew,
>>>
>>> thanks for doing this backport. I agree, Severin's finding needs to be
On 26/03/2019 21:57, Langer, Christoph wrote:
> Hi Andrew,
>
> thanks for doing this backport. I agree, Severin's finding needs to be added
> to hotspot's Unix/Posix vm.make files.
Yes, it was missed because it's already there prior to this patch in the
9 and up HotSpot build which is quite diff
Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8189761
Webrev(s):
https://cr.openjdk.java.net/~andrew/openjdk8/8189761/hotspot/
https://cr.openjdk.java.net/~andrew/openjdk8/8189761/jdk/
https://cr.openjdk.java.net/~andrew/openjdk8/8189761/root/
This backport is largely clean, bar fuzzing, for the J
On 21/03/2019 15:49, Erik Joelsson wrote:
> I don't think anyone has tried. Just removing the check in configure
> should be simple enough, but I suspect there will be lots of follow-on
> issues.
>
> /Erik
>
> On 2019-03-21 03:05, Langer, Christoph wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> the Mac experts will probabl
On 19/03/2019 15:09, Martin Buchholz wrote:
> Probably it's because glibc deprecated readdir, and we don't have
> --disable-warnings-as-errors by default?
>
> (I think warnings should not be errors except as opt-in by openjdk
> developers/maintainers)
I agree, and we've implemented it that way do
On 19/03/2019 15:09, Martin Buchholz wrote:
> Probably it's because glibc deprecated readdir, and we don't have
> --disable-warnings-as-errors by default?
>
> (I think warnings should not be errors except as opt-in by openjdk
> developers/maintainers)
>
> On Tue, Mar 19, 2019 at 7:47 AM Andrew Ha
Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8193764
Webrev: https://cr.openjdk.java.net/~andrew/openjdk8/8193764/webrev.01/
This one applies pretty much as-is, when adjustments are made to use the
jdk-options.m4 file rather than jdk-version.m4, which doesn't exist in
8u. generated-configure.sh i
On 14/03/2019 15:31, Erik Joelsson wrote:
> Looks good to me.
>
> /Erik
>
> On 2019-03-13 17:27, Andrew John Hughes wrote:
>> Forwarding to build-dev for wider review.
>>
>> Forwarded Message
>> Subject: [RFR] 8217753: Enable HotSpot build
On 14/03/2019 15:32, Erik Joelsson wrote:
> Looks good.
>
> /Erik
>
> On 2019-03-13 17:27, Andrew John Hughes wrote:
>> Forwarding to build-dev for wider review.
>>
>> Forwarded Message
>> Subject: [RFR] 8220397: JDK-8036003 backport reg
Forwarding to build-dev for wider review.
Forwarded Message
Subject: [RFR] 8220397: JDK-8036003 backport regresses no_strip builds
Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2019 07:33:16 +
From: Andrew John Hughes
To: 'jdk8u-...@openjdk.java.net'
Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/
Forwarding to build-dev for wider review.
Forwarded Message
Subject: [RFR] 8217753: Enable HotSpot builds on 5.x Linux kernels
Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2019 07:24:48 +
From: Andrew John Hughes
To: 'jdk8u-...@openjdk.java.net'
Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/J
On 20:43 Wed 04 Jan , John Von Seggern wrote:
> Kelly,
> Thanks for taking the time to answer my question. This information is
> very helpful.
>
> > So in general, doing static linking is a bad idea and should not be done
> > lightly, if ever.
>
The most obvious issue for me is security.
On 10:41 Wed 04 Jan , Andrew Haley wrote:
> On 01/04/2012 06:16 AM, John Von Seggern wrote:
> > Way back in a bug report for Java 1.4, I found this note:
> >
> > "We statically link the C++ runtime in JDK and enabled linker script
> > to hide symbols from libstdc++ and other internal symbols."
On 09:11 Wed 09 Nov , Florian Weimer wrote:
> * Srinivas Ramakrishna:
>
> > Sorry for a rather naive question. I am building openjdk (6) from
> > scratch for the first time and am running into an issue when building
> > the AWT classes because of not finding the relevant Motif header files
> >
On 15:42 Fri 21 Oct , Tim Ellison wrote:
> Is anyone else building OpenJDK 7 on Ubuntu 10.11? I found I need a
> couple of extra definitions to work around problems not seen on 10.4.
>
CCing build-dev instead as these are build issues, not porting issues.
> 1) "This OS is not supported"
>
On 14:28 Fri 14 Oct , fredrik.ohrst...@oracle.com wrote:
> Changeset: 984f119f2ea7
> Author:ohrstrom
> Date: 2011-10-14 16:36 +0200
> URL: http://hg.openjdk.java.net/build-infra/jdk7/rev/984f119f2ea7
>
> Jaxws actually depends on jaxp, this becomes obvious when compiling
> with
On 13:52 Wed 12 Oct , Fredrik Öhrström wrote:
> 2011/10/12 Dr Andrew John Hughes :
> > FWIW, I recently did exactly that in IcedTea because I'm sick of all the
> > problems this drop solution causes.
> > This has cut things down from needing five tarballs (jaxp
On 10:52 Tue 11 Oct , Kelly O'Hair wrote:
> My plan of record has been to just unzip these bundles right into the
> repositories and get rid of this painful
> situation, that I have to confess, I created. :^(
> But I was thinking I could come up with some kind of way to paint these
> sources
On 18:25 Wed 03 Aug , Kelly O'Hair wrote:
> FYI...
>
> If you are interested in the jdk8 build infrastructure changes coming down
> the pipe, I invite you
> to join the build-infra-dev alias:
>
> http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/build-infra-dev/2011-August/29.html
>
> I expect thi
On 16:02 Mon 01 Aug , Jonathan Gibbons wrote:
> On 08/01/2011 02:55 PM, Dr Andrew John Hughes wrote:
> > On 11:07 Mon 01 Aug , Alexandre Boulgakov wrote:
> >> Hello Kelly,
> >>
> >> Do you know the answer to this one?
> >>
> >> Thanks,
On 11:07 Mon 01 Aug , Alexandre Boulgakov wrote:
> Hello Kelly,
>
> Do you know the answer to this one?
>
> Thanks,
> Sasha
>
> On 7/29/2011 11:37 AM, Alexandre Boulgakov wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > I am working on removing the javac -Xlint warnings from java.net.*.
> > After removing these w
On 09:17 Thu 28 Jul , Keith McGuigan wrote:
>
> Ok, thanks. Code looks good to me then.
>
Ok, can I push this or do you still need to do this via JPRT?
Either way, I need a bug ID please.
> --
> - Keith
>
> On Jul 28, 2011, at 9:02 AM, Mark Wielaard wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 2011-07-28 at 08
On 15:02 Thu 28 Jul , Mark Wielaard wrote:
> On Thu, 2011-07-28 at 08:32 -0400, Keith McGuigan wrote:
> > This appears to remove support for version 2.7. Is that intentional?
>
> There has never been a 2.7 kernel.
> 2.6.39.3 is the last before the 3.0 series.
> https://secure.wikimedia.org/wi
On 17:12 Wed 27 Jul , Kelly O'Hair wrote:
>
> On Jul 27, 2011, at 4:28 PM, Dr Andrew John Hughes wrote:
>
> > On 11:58 Wed 27 Jul , Kelly O'Hair wrote:
> >>
> >> On Jul 27, 2011, at 11:04 AM, Dr Andrew John Hughes wrote:
> >>
&
Linux 3.0 was released last week:
https://lwn.net/Articles/452531/
This webrev:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~andrew/pr748/
fixes the check in the HotSpot build to allow Linux 3.0 and on
through the version check.
This is against hotspot-comp/OpenJDK8 but our testing in IcedTea6
shows that the s
On 11:58 Wed 27 Jul , Kelly O'Hair wrote:
>
> On Jul 27, 2011, at 11:04 AM, Dr Andrew John Hughes wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > Can someone please tell me why:
> >
> > http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk8/tl/jdk/rev/cf4edfcd7119
> >
> > reve
Hi,
Can someone please tell me why:
http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk8/tl/jdk/rev/cf4edfcd7119
reverted my earlier fix:
http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk8/tl/jdk/rev/80368890a2a0
without any discussion?
The correct fix would have been to bump the boot source language/target class
versions to 7, not
On 11:24 Sun 10 Jul , Erik Trimble wrote:
> Folks,
>
> PPC isn't a currently supported architecture for OpenJDK - that is, no
> one has contributed any code to support it. I do know of several
> proprietary ports, but that doesn't help. :-) I don't even remember the
> last time it was pot
On 16:15 Wed 15 Jun , Andrew Haley wrote:
> On 06/15/2011 04:11 PM, Dr Andrew John Hughes wrote:
> > On 09:59 Wed 15 Jun , Andrew Haley wrote:
> >> On 14/06/11 22:22, Sebastian Sickelmann wrote:
> >>>
> >>> i had done a contribution to openjdk
On 09:59 Wed 15 Jun , Andrew Haley wrote:
> On 14/06/11 22:22, Sebastian Sickelmann wrote:
> >
> > i had done a contribution to openjdk7 and remembered it was very
> > hard to setup all the build thinks. Now a want to make some new
> > contributions and i struggle again with the build setup. H
On 08:57 Fri 03 Jun , Kelly O'Hair wrote:
>
> The documented Boot JDK to be used when building JDK7 repositories is JDK6
> Update 18, as listed here
> http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk7/build/raw-file/tip/README-builds.html#MBE
>
> However, as many people know, JDK releases newer than JDK6u18
On 16:12 Fri 20 May , Kelly O'Hair wrote:
>
> On May 20, 2011, at 3:36 PM, Dr Andrew John Hughes wrote:
>
> > On 13:11 Fri 20 May , Kelly O'Hair wrote:
> >>
> >> We now have a Build Infrastructure project!
> >>
> >> Regi
On 07:20 Fri 20 May , David Holmes wrote:
> Dr Andrew John Hughes said the following on 05/20/11 06:24:
> > On 09:47 Thu 19 May , David Holmes wrote:
> >> Dr Andrew John Hughes said the following on 05/19/11 05:29:
> >>> On 08:35 Mon 16 May , Kelly
On 13:11 Fri 20 May , Kelly O'Hair wrote:
>
> We now have a Build Infrastructure project!
>
> Register for email at:
> http://mail.openjdk.java.net/mailman/listinfo/build-infra-dev
>
> The repos will be at:
>http://hg.openjdk.java.net/build-infra/jdk7
>
> But I haven't been able to po
On 17:00 Thu 19 May , Kelly O'Hair wrote:
>
snip...
>
> But yes, a great project would be to see if we could get to 'javac -Xlint:all
> -Werror' someday.
> We really should... in fact it should be a requirement moving forward that
> all java code be warning free, and stay that way.
>
S
On 10:32 Thu 19 May , Alan Bateman wrote:
> David Holmes wrote:
> > :
> >
> >> In contrast, there are basically two Java compilers in general use
> >> (javac and ecj)
> >> and one is part of OpenJDK. Yet, the Java code does not have -Werror
> >> enabled by default and there
> >> are a mass o
On 09:47 Thu 19 May , David Holmes wrote:
> Dr Andrew John Hughes said the following on 05/19/11 05:29:
> > On 08:35 Mon 16 May , Kelly O'Hair wrote:
>
> >> The -Werror option is a blessing and a curse. I find it highly commendable
> >> that teams (l
On 08:35 Mon 16 May , Kelly O'Hair wrote:
>
> On May 16, 2011, at 7:23 AM, Dr Andrew John Hughes wrote:
>
> > I think the issue is actually having -Werror enabled for all builds, not
> > just debug builds. Without that, these additional warnings would just be
>
On 07:25 Mon 16 May , Erik Trimble wrote:
> On 5/16/2011 6:03 AM, Andrew Haley wrote:
> > On 05/16/2011 12:08 PM, Dalibor Topic wrote:
> >
> >> The reason I'm asking is that I'm wondering if this is something we
> >> should expect to crop up in different parts of the code base, or
> >> whether
On 14:03 Mon 16 May , Andrew Haley wrote:
> On 05/16/2011 12:08 PM, Dalibor Topic wrote:
> > On 5/16/11 12:48 PM, Andrew Haley wrote:
> >> On 16/05/11 11:22, Dalibor Topic wrote:
> >>> Any idea why, for example Fedora's & Debian's, default warning sets
> >>> differ?
> >>
> >> Because the dist
On 21:09 Wed 11 May , Dmitry Samersoff wrote:
> Omair,
>
> CR 7043921 . It need someone from jdk team to integrate it.
>
Omair has commit rights so he can just push it now.
--
Andrew :)
Free Java Software Engineer
Red Hat, Inc. (http://www.redhat.com)
Support Free Java!
Contribute to GNU
On 15:31 Wed 11 May , bhavesh.pa...@sun.com wrote:
> Changeset: 42c22d5a2cd0
> Author:bpatel
> Date: 2011-05-11 08:30 -0700
> URL: http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk7/build/jdk/rev/42c22d5a2cd0
>
> 7043684: Update man pages for JDK 7 tools
> Reviewed-by: skannan
>
> ! src/linux/doc
On 17:32 Tue 10 May , Kelly O'Hair wrote:
>
> I'm a little reluctant to accept this, I'm not sure what the full
> ramifications are.
> But I think we want it.
>
> Is this in OpenJDK6 now?
>
OpenJDK6 changes have to go through 7 first, so no. But it's been in IcedTea6
since
before there w
On 18:14 Wed 04 May , Kelly O'Hair wrote:
>
> On May 4, 2011, at 5:42 PM, Dr Andrew John Hughes wrote:
>
> >>
> >> 7042040: Remove disk space sanity check
> >>
> >
> > Ok, if
> >
> > http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~andrew/
On 16:27 Wed 04 May , Kelly O'Hair wrote:
>
>
> I agree we should toss the check.
>
> >
> > I'll need a bug ID for this.
>
> 7042040: Remove disk space sanity check
>
Ok, if
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~andrew/sync/webrev.02/
looks ok, I'll push it to the build tree.
>
> -kto
>
> >
On 15:37 Wed 04 May , David Katleman wrote:
> Would be interesting to know the original objection to Andrew's change
> last year.
>
If there was one, it never reached me either publicly or otherwise.
The archives show no responses.
> Absent that, I see no reason this could not be removed an
This is what is done in the solaris case.
> The accuracy gained by using --sync is probably not worth the
> performance loss caused by flushing disk buffers.
>
> The patch was originally written by Andrew John Hughes
> (ahug...@redhat.com) and we have had this in icedtea6 for
On 08:40 Mon 02 May , Kelly O'Hair wrote:
>
> There has been a request for essentially that, more transparency on these
> sources.
> The downloads are also painful, I know.
>
> The issue with these sources is that they are effectively 'generated
> sources', transformed
> from master sources
On 09:23 Mon 02 May , Fredrik Öhrström wrote:
> Thanks!
>
> But I am of the strong opinion that the jaxp and jaxws source code should be
> committed into the jaxp/jaxws repositories when drops are made.
>
> //Fredrik
>
+1
--
Andrew :)
Free Java Software Engineer
Red Hat, Inc. (http://www.
On 14:27 Wed 27 Apr , Frédéric Le Mouël wrote:
> cd linux_i486_compiler1/product && ./test_gamma
> java full version "1.6.0_24-b07"
> Using java runtime at: /opt/sun-jdk-1.6.0.24/jre
> java version "1.6.0_24"
> Java(TM) SE Runtime Environment (build 1.6.0_24-b07)
^^^ This bit isn't OpenJDK.
-
Is it necessary to have all these posted to build-dev? There doesn't
seem to be any work going on, just merging as far as I can see. Shouldn't
this be on its own deploy-dev list? As far as I'm aware, the deploy team
don't do any OpenJDK work anyway.
On 01:30 Wed 09 Mar , igor.nekrestya...@o
On 14:33 Thu 21 Apr , Kelly O'Hair wrote:
>
> This started out as an annoyance around the use of -Wno-clobber on Linux when
> the gcc might
> not support it. Turned into fixing several CC_VER checks in the makefiles:
>
> 7038711: Fix CC_VER checks for compiler options, fix use of -Wno-clobbe
On 15:14 Fri 15 Apr , Phil Race wrote:
> For jpeg its something we could consider for JDK 8 although I think its been
> called libjpeg since JDK 1.0 without apparent problems.
But you use an in-tree libjpeg (at least at present).
Having the option of linking against a system libjpeg at compil
On 11:41 Tue 19 Apr , Kelly O'Hair wrote:
>
> I imagine there are probably hundreds of variable names that if set in the
> environment,
> could impact the build, on purpose or by accident :^(.
> We do check for JAVA_HOME and LD_LIBRARY_PATH.
>
> Is JAVAC some kind of typical or standard envi
On 18:03 Sat 16 Apr , luxInteg wrote:
snip...
> > What kind of Linux is this?
>
> This is blfs linux built by compiling sources from scratch.
BLFS has instructions on building IcedTea6 which uses OpenJDK6 here:
http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/view/cvs/general/icedtea6.html
--
Andrew
On 14:48 Fri 15 Apr , luxInteg wrote:
> Greetings,
>
> I am attempting to compile openJDK-7 on a computer whth these:-
> --cpu amd64 2cores
> --OS cblfs 64-bit linux gcc-4.5.2 kernel-2.6.35.7 jdk-6u24, ant-1.8.1,
> make-3.82,unzip-5.55,zip-3.0
>
>
> here are the environmental veriables I
On 16:18 Tue 12 Apr , Kelly O'Hair wrote:
>
> On Apr 12, 2011, at 3:58 PM, Dr Andrew John Hughes wrote:
>
> > On 13:46 Tue 12 Apr , Kelly O'Hair wrote:
> >>
> >> Some shared libraries do not have and will not have mapfiles, at least for
>
On 13:46 Tue 12 Apr , Kelly O'Hair wrote:
>
> Some shared libraries do not have and will not have mapfiles, at least for
> now, we
> give these an exception to the mapfile check (which just issues a warning).
>
> 7033957: Library built without a mapfile: libxinerama.so
> http://cr.openjdk.ja
On 14:15 Tue 12 Apr , Kelly O'Hair wrote:
>
> FYI...
>
> -kto
>
> Begin forwarded message:
>
> > From: "Kelly O'Hair"
> > Date: April 12, 2011 14:07:11 PM PDT
> > To: core-libs-dev
> > Cc: Rama Pulavarthi
> > Subject: Heads up, new jaxws source drop bundle
> >
> >
> > 7034918: Integrat
On 08:50 Wed 06 Apr , Kelly O'Hair wrote:
>
> Just an FYI...
>
> Anyone working with C/C++ should be well aware of the functions we should be
> avoiding:
> http://hub.opensolaris.org/bin/view/Community+Group+security/funclist
>
> Microsoft has used the term "banned" and has a much more ex
On 20:15 Thu 31 Mar , David Holmes wrote:
> Dr Andrew John Hughes said the following on 03/31/11 06:31:
> > On 09:42 Wed 30 Mar , Kelly O'Hair wrote:
> >> On Mar 30, 2011, at 9:26 AM, Dr Andrew John Hughes wrote:
> >>
> >>> This change (arrived
On 09:42 Wed 30 Mar , Kelly O'Hair wrote:
>
> On Mar 30, 2011, at 9:26 AM, Dr Andrew John Hughes wrote:
>
> > This change (arrived at by both myself and Gary Benson separately):
> >
> > http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~gbenson/zero-shark-fixes-04-1/
> >
&g
In this HotSpot change:
changeset: 1932:f95d63e2154a
user:stefank
date:Tue Nov 23 13:22:55 2010 -0800
summary: 6989984: Use standard include model for Hospot
changes are made to how the files to compile are collated in the Makefiles.
Namely, this line is added:
+CORE_PATHS
On 07:59 Wed 16 Mar , David Holmes wrote:
> Hi Andrew,
>
> See inline ...
>
> Dr Andrew John Hughes said the following on 03/16/11 07:43:
> > On 18:05 Tue 15 Mar , David Holmes wrote:
> >> BUILD_CLIENT_ONLY:
> >>
> >> http://cr.openjdk.java
On 08:43 Tue 15 Mar , Kelly O'Hair wrote:
>
> On Mar 15, 2011, at 2:05 AM, Steve Poole wrote:
>
> >>
> >> A singular process that everyone uses? Good Luck with that. I think that
> >> is called "herding cats". :^)
> >> Sorry, I've been doing this too long, if there is a variation on doing
On 09:14 Thu 10 Mar , Kelly O'Hair wrote:
>
> On Mar 9, 2011, at 4:48 PM, Dr Andrew John Hughes wrote:
>
> >>
> >> Other ideas were considered:
> >> * Folding jaxp/jaxws into the root or jdk8/jdk repo
> >
> > Sounds good. jd
On 18:05 Tue 15 Mar , David Holmes wrote:
> Further to my earlier review request for 7025066 I've now broken this
> down into four parts:
>
> - support for BUILD_CLIENT_ONLY
> - support for cross-compilation incl basic ARM/PPC support
> - AWT related changes for cross-compile/arm/pp/ plus SE-
On 17:35 Thu 10 Mar , David Holmes wrote:
> Dr Andrew John Hughes said the following on 03/10/11 10:26:
> > On 22:09 Wed 09 Mar , David Holmes wrote:
> >> My original reply does not seem to have made it to build-dev.
> >>
> >> I've updated the w
On 06:40 Fri 11 Mar , David Holmes wrote:
> Fredrik Öhrström said the following on 03/10/11 20:22:
> > I think it is important that a recent stock mercurial install
> > can check out the full openjdk with a single clone
> > command.
> >
> > I.e. you should not have to install special extension
s you have independent entities
(the VM and javac et. al.). I don't think it makes sense with code that
has to then be imported into the JDK build.
> -phil.
>
>
> On 3/9/2011 4:48 PM, Dr Andrew John Hughes wrote:
> > On 18:32 Tue 08 Mar , Kelly O'Hair wrote:
> >
On 18:32 Tue 08 Mar , Kelly O'Hair wrote:
>
> First, if we talk about the mercurial forests, it has nothing to do with the
> Mercurial Forest Extension.
> What we really have is a set of nested repositories, sometimes called our
> "forest" of repositories.
>
> This email is just about the a
1 - 100 of 356 matches
Mail list logo
