Hi Andrew,
Thanks for your kind response!
在 2018年09月11日 01:19, Andrew Hughes 写道:
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 j
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
It would be awesome to use the sanitizers to find native code bugs in
openjdk, but it seems like a serious project. Here at Google we are doing
our small part by improving support for clang on Linux.
On Wed, Sep 5, 2018 at 6:17 PM, Leslie Zhai wrote:
> It might be UBSan false positive :) What a
It might be UBSan false positive :) What about ASan?
https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8189800
在 2018年09月06日 09:12, Martin Buchholz 写道:
it's difficult to use llvm tools like sanitizers on openjdk sources,
because of the "cheating" - relying on undefined behavior, and the JIT.
On Wed,
it's difficult to use llvm tools like sanitizers on openjdk sources,
because of the "cheating" - relying on undefined behavior, and the JIT.
On Wed, Sep 5, 2018 at 6:09 PM, Leslie Zhai wrote:
> Hi Martin,
>
> Thanks for your response!
>
> I haven't tested compiling OpenJDK 12-dev with LLVM toolc
Hi Martin,
Thanks for your response!
I haven't tested compiling OpenJDK 12-dev with LLVM toolchain, perhaps
the issue had been fixed already, because clang treat invalid argument
'-std=gnu++98' not allowed with 'C' as error. It is better only apply
EXTRA_CFLAGS to C without EXTRA_CXXFLAGS.
We seem to have some confusion about flags for C vs. flags for C++. Most
flags for most toolchains apply to both C and C++, so it's understandable
that we want to unify them. But some flags, notably -std, are
language-specific. We have both EXTRA_CFLAGS and EXTRA_CXXFLAGS, so we
should expect EX
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 complains about it:
Compiling jsig.c (for libjsig.so)
( ( /usr/bin/
On 12/07/2016 1:40 PM, Andrew Hughes wrote:
- 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,
This looks good except for the change in toolchain.m4, which looks lik
- 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,
> >>>
> >>> This looks good except for the change in toolchain.m4, which looks li
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,
This looks good except for the change in toolchain.m4, which looks like it
might actually break cross compilation by overriding the value for
com
> On Jul 10, 2016, at 5:05 PM, Andrew Hughes wrote:
>
>
>
> - 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 overri
* Andrew Hughes [2016-07-07 11:53]:
> Sadly, I celebrated too soon; it seems that change just delayed the failure
> until much later in the build.
>
> I've found the problem though. In
> src/share/vm/utilities/globalDefinitions.hpp,
> we have:
>
> #ifdef max
> #undef max
> #endif
>
> #ifdef mi
- 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
> 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 using the target compiler. With this chang
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 using the target compiler. With
this change we basically have:
if cross compilation
TOOLCHAIN_PREPARE
- 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/8156980/webrev.04/hotspot
> >>
> >> These look good to me.
> >>
> >
> > Mino
> 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/8156980/webrev.04/hotspot
>>
>> These look good to me.
>>
>
> Minor revision:
>
> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~andrew
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
> On Jul 6, 2016, at 1:23 AM, Andrew Hughes wrote:
>
> - 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
- 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_CFLAGS} ${$2CXXSTD_CXXFLAG}"
> >>
> >> There is a pre-e
> 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_CFLAGS} ${$2CXXSTD_CXXFLAG}"
>>
>> There is a pre-existing bug in the setup of ${$2CXXSTD_CXXFLA
- 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 output from configure. My only nit is the comment describing the
> >> pa
> 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 output from configure. My only nit is the comment describing the
>> parameters for FLAGS_SETUP_GCC6_COMPILER_FLAGS.
- Original Message -
> Hello,
>
> In general it looks good. It's nice to see that this also fixes that
> warning output from configure. My only nit is the comment describing the
> parameters for FLAGS_SETUP_GCC6_COMPILER_FLAGS. It indicates that it
> takes named parameters while it actuall
Hello,
In general it looks good. It's nice to see that this also fixes that
warning output from configure. My only nit is the comment describing the
parameters for FLAGS_SETUP_GCC6_COMPILER_FLAGS. It indicates that it
takes named parameters while it actually just takes positional. Please
eith
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
29 matches
Mail list logo
