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?
https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-81
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 Berli
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 "-m64"
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.m4Fri
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 verif
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 y
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 there
Hi Severin, Matthias,
On 5/09/2016 10:16 PM, Severin Gehwolf wrote:
On Mon, 2016-09-05 at 14:03 +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
The attached patch adds support for building zero for the x86_64-
linux-gnux32
target, having changes in the build system, hotspot and jdk.
- the build system currently
On Mon, 2016-09-05 at 14:03 +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
> The attached patch adds support for building zero for the x86_64-
> linux-gnux32
> target, having changes in the build system, hotspot and jdk.
>
> - the build system currently only derives the target from
> the cpu in PLATFORM_EXTRACT
Build changes look ok.
/Erik
On 2016-09-05 14:03, Matthias Klose wrote:
The attached patch adds support for building zero for the x86_64-linux-gnux32
target, having changes in the build system, hotspot and jdk.
- the build system currently only derives the target from
the cpu in PLATFOR
The attached patch adds support for building zero for the x86_64-linux-gnux32
target, having changes in the build system, hotspot and jdk.
- the build system currently only derives the target from
the cpu in PLATFORM_EXTRACT_VARS_FROM_CPU; that is not enough
for the new target, which only d
13 matches
Mail list logo
