On Tue, 2018-03-27 at 17:46 +0900, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
> On 03/27/2018 05:23 PM, Edward Nevill wrote:
> > Sorry for the delay. I was doing another test build on qemu which takes
> > about 3 days.
> >
> >
> What confuses me: Why RISCV here and not RI
On Tue, 2018-03-27 at 17:46 +0900, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
> On 03/27/2018 05:23 PM, Edward Nevill wrote:
> > @@ -1733,6 +1733,9 @@
> > #ifndef EM_AARCH64
> >#define EM_AARCH64183 /* ARM AARCH64 */
> > #endif
> > +#ifndef EM_RISCV
Hi,
On Tue, 2018-03-27 at 14:10 +0900, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
> On 03/24/2018 02:26 AM, Magnus Ihse Bursie wrote:
> >
> > On 2018-03-20 14:54, Edward Nevill wrote:
> > > Thanks for this. I have updated the webrev with the above comment.
> > >
> >
On Tue, 2018-03-20 at 08:39 +0100, Erik Helin wrote:
> Please review the following webrev
> >
> > Bugid: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8199138
> > Webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~enevill/8199138/webrev.00
>
>32 # First, filter out everything that doesn't begin with "aarch64-"
>
On Sun, 2018-03-18 at 14:37 +, Andrew Haley wrote:
> On 03/17/2018 07:02 PM, Edward Nevill wrote:
> > Webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~enevill/8199138/webrev.00
> >
> > This webrev add Zero support for RISC-V
>
> What happens with atomics? Do we fall back to
Hi,
Please review the following webrev
Bugid: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8199138
Webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~enevill/8199138/webrev.00
This webrev add Zero support for RISC-V
I propose to set up a project to develop template interpreter, C1 & C2
support for RISC-V and I wi
Hi,
Please review the following change which fixes broken configuration for
arm 32.
Bug ID: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8199152
Webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~enevill/8199152/webrev.00/
The arm 32 configure is broken after the following changes
https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/b
Hi,
Could I +1 a request for this to be fixed. I appreciate it is harmless, but it
is an annoyance and it is just going to be a source of bug reports forever:-)
If you wish I can author a changeset for this.
Regards,
Ed.
On Wed, 2015-11-04 at 08:49 +0100, Volker Simonis wrote:
> Hi Johnathan,
>> Just realized this was sent to hotspot-dev (attempting bcc) but is not a
> >>> hotspot issue. With your new approach this is a build issue so cc'ing
> >>> build-dev.
> >>>
> >>> The new approach seems better to me but build folk
