Martin Buchholz wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 18, 2009 at 02:50, Andrew Haley wrote:
>> Martin Buchholz wrote:
>> Well, maintaining this "buffer" forest is, more or less, what IcedTea does.
>> I'm not sure that we need another one.
>
> I wasn't suggesting we start a new buffer forest.
> I was suggesting w
On Sat, Apr 18, 2009 at 02:50, Andrew Haley wrote:
> Martin Buchholz wrote:
> Well, maintaining this "buffer" forest is, more or less, what IcedTea does.
> I'm not sure that we need another one.
I wasn't suggesting we start a new buffer forest.
I was suggesting we (Google + IcedTea)
consider shar
Martin Buchholz wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 9, 2009 at 06:14, Andrew Haley wrote:
>> Andrew Haley wrote:
>>> We at Red Hat have noticed that the list of IcedTea local patches has
>>> been getting large, with some local patches that should have been
>>> pushed upstream. Also, some IcedTea patches have be
On Thu, Apr 9, 2009 at 06:14, Andrew Haley wrote:
> Andrew Haley wrote:
>> We at Red Hat have noticed that the list of IcedTea local patches has
>> been getting large, with some local patches that should have been
>> pushed upstream. Also, some IcedTea patches have been committed to
>> OpenJDK 7
Catching up on email,
Andrew John Hughes wrote:
2009/4/9 Alan Bateman :
Andrew Haley wrote:
[snip]
I'm not very familiar with IcedTea but I cloned the repository to see what
these patches are about. Here are a few comments:
icedtea-6728542-epoll.patch seems to be a change-set I push
Andrew Haley wrote:
Andrew John Hughes wrote:
2009/4/9 Alan Bateman :
icedtea-jvmtiEnv.patch - I thought JvmtiEnv::GetLineNumberTable already
handled this case so I'm curious why this one is needed.
Added by Andrew Haley as part of work on Shark; perhaps he can explain.
2009/4/9 Alan Bateman :
> Andrew John Hughes wrote:
>>
>> :
>>>
>>> icedtea-bytebuffer-compact.patch - this looks to be a partial fix to
>>> 6593946. If so, 6593946 is already in jdk6/jdk6/jdk
>>> (http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk6/jdk6/jdk/rev/3e7bfcdcf96f).
>>>
>>>
>>
>> IcedTea6 is still based on
Andrew John Hughes wrote:
:
icedtea-bytebuffer-compact.patch - this looks to be a partial fix to
6593946. If so, 6593946 is already in jdk6/jdk6/jdk
(http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk6/jdk6/jdk/rev/3e7bfcdcf96f).
IcedTea6 is still based on the last build drop of jdk6, not the
Mercurial repo
Andrew John Hughes wrote:
> 2009/4/9 Alan Bateman :
>> icedtea-jvmtiEnv.patch - I thought JvmtiEnv::GetLineNumberTable already
>> handled this case so I'm curious why this one is needed.
>
> Added by Andrew Haley as part of work on Shark; perhaps he can explain.
GetLineNumberTable checks for a m
2009/4/9 Andrew John Hughes :
> 2009/4/9 Alan Bateman :
>> Andrew Haley wrote:
>>>
>>> :
>>> The page is at http://icedtea.classpath.org/wiki/IcedTea_JDK6_Patches
>>> These are the patches in icedtea/patches and icedtea/patches/hotspot.
>>>
>>>
>>> * Every patch should be assigned to someone.
>>>
>
2009/4/9 Alan Bateman :
> Andrew Haley wrote:
>>
>> :
>> The page is at http://icedtea.classpath.org/wiki/IcedTea_JDK6_Patches
>> These are the patches in icedtea/patches and icedtea/patches/hotspot.
>>
>>
>> * Every patch should be assigned to someone.
>>
>> * Every patch should be discussed.
>>
>
2009/4/1 Joseph D. Darcy :
> Andrew Haley wrote:
>>
>> We at Red Hat have noticed that the list of IcedTea local patches has
>> been getting large, with some local patches that should have been
>> pushed upstream. Also, some IcedTea patches have been committed to
>> OpenJDK 7 but not OpenJDK 6.
>>
Andrew Haley schrieb:
> The page is at http://icedtea.classpath.org/wiki/IcedTea_JDK6_Patches
> SCA: Enter "OK" here if you are certain that all authors of this patch have an
> SCA on file.
this is not correct. AFAIU all authors of the patch have to submit the patch
under the SCA, just having an
Matthias Klose wrote:
> Andrew Haley schrieb:
>> The page is at http://icedtea.classpath.org/wiki/IcedTea_JDK6_Patches
>
>> SCA: Enter "OK" here if you are certain that all authors of this patch have
>> an
>> SCA on file.
>
> this is not correct. AFAIU all authors of the patch have to submit the
2009/4/9 Alan Bateman :
> Andrew Haley wrote:
>>
>> :
>> The page is at http://icedtea.classpath.org/wiki/IcedTea_JDK6_Patches
>> These are the patches in icedtea/patches and icedtea/patches/hotspot.
>>
>>
>> * Every patch should be assigned to someone.
>>
>> * Every patch should be discussed.
>>
>
Andrew Haley wrote:
:
The page is at http://icedtea.classpath.org/wiki/IcedTea_JDK6_Patches
These are the patches in icedtea/patches and icedtea/patches/hotspot.
* Every patch should be assigned to someone.
* Every patch should be discussed.
* If we can, we will push a patch upstream. If we
Andrew Haley wrote:
> We at Red Hat have noticed that the list of IcedTea local patches has
> been getting large, with some local patches that should have been
> pushed upstream. Also, some IcedTea patches have been committed to
> OpenJDK 7 but not OpenJDK 6.
>
> So, we're going to have a serious
Christian Thalinger wrote:
> On Wed, 2009-04-01 at 11:33 -0700, Kelly O'Hair wrote:
> > The changes to the jdk files look fine. One question though, does
> > the name "CORE_BUILD" have a meaning to the JDK, or just the VM?
> > Just wondering if a "VM_CORE_BUILD" or "HOTSPOT_CORE_BUILD" might
> > b
Andrew Haley wrote:
> We at Red Hat have noticed that the list of IcedTea local patches has
> been getting large, with some local patches that should have been
> pushed upstream. Also, some IcedTea patches have been committed to
> OpenJDK 7 but not OpenJDK 6.
>
> So, we're going to have a serious
Christian Thalinger wrote:
On Wed, 2009-04-01 at 11:33 -0700, Kelly O'Hair wrote:
The changes to the jdk files look fine.
One question though, does the name "CORE_BUILD" have a meaning to the
JDK, or just the VM? Just wondering if a "VM_CORE_BUILD" or
"HOTSPOT_CORE_BUILD" might be a better nam
On Wed, 2009-04-01 at 11:33 -0700, Kelly O'Hair wrote:
> The changes to the jdk files look fine.
> One question though, does the name "CORE_BUILD" have a meaning to the
> JDK, or just the VM? Just wondering if a "VM_CORE_BUILD" or
> "HOTSPOT_CORE_BUILD" might be a better name. Not a big deal.
I do
2009/4/1 Kelly O'Hair :
>
> Andrew John Hughes wrote:
>>
>> 2009/4/1 Andrew John Hughes :
>>>
>>> 2009/4/1 Kelly O'Hair :
Andrew Haley wrote:
>
> We at Red Hat have noticed that the list of IcedTea local patches has
> been getting large, with some local patches that should hav
Andrew John Hughes wrote:
2009/4/1 Andrew John Hughes :
2009/4/1 Kelly O'Hair :
Andrew Haley wrote:
We at Red Hat have noticed that the list of IcedTea local patches has
been getting large, with some local patches that should have been
pushed upstream. Also, some IcedTea patches have been co
Christian Thalinger wrote:
On Wed, 2009-04-01 at 10:47 -0700, Kelly O'Hair wrote:
I can certainly help out with any build related (makefiles etc.)
changes.
Ohh, that reminds me of this one:
https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/show_bug.cgi?id=100011
Because one change touches a jdk Makefile, I did
On Wed, 2009-04-01 at 10:47 -0700, Kelly O'Hair wrote:
> I can certainly help out with any build related (makefiles etc.)
> changes.
Ohh, that reminds me of this one:
https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/show_bug.cgi?id=100011
Because one change touches a jdk Makefile, I didn't push yet. Either
someon
2009/4/1 Andrew Haley :
> Andrew John Hughes wrote:
>> 2009/4/1 Kelly O'Hair :
>>>
>>> I can certainly help out with any build related (makefiles etc.)
>>> changes.
>>
>> Good, because to my knowledge, those form the majority :)
>> However, my guess would also be that some require extensive reworki
2009/4/1 Andrew John Hughes :
> 2009/4/1 Kelly O'Hair :
>> Andrew Haley wrote:
>>>
>>> We at Red Hat have noticed that the list of IcedTea local patches has
>>> been getting large, with some local patches that should have been
>>> pushed upstream. Also, some IcedTea patches have been committed to
Andrew John Hughes wrote:
> 2009/4/1 Kelly O'Hair :
>>
>> I can certainly help out with any build related (makefiles etc.)
>> changes.
>
> Good, because to my knowledge, those form the majority :)
> However, my guess would also be that some require extensive reworking
> to be generally acceptable
2009/4/1 Kelly O'Hair :
> Andrew Haley wrote:
>>
>> We at Red Hat have noticed that the list of IcedTea local patches has
>> been getting large, with some local patches that should have been
>> pushed upstream. Also, some IcedTea patches have been committed to
>> OpenJDK 7 but not OpenJDK 6.
>>
>>
Andrew Haley wrote:
We at Red Hat have noticed that the list of IcedTea local patches has
been getting large, with some local patches that should have been
pushed upstream. Also, some IcedTea patches have been committed to
OpenJDK 7 but not OpenJDK 6.
So, we're going to have a serious attempt t
Andrew Haley wrote:
We at Red Hat have noticed that the list of IcedTea local patches has
been getting large, with some local patches that should have been
pushed upstream. Also, some IcedTea patches have been committed to
OpenJDK 7 but not OpenJDK 6.
So, we're going to have a serious attempt t
2009/4/1 Andrew Haley :
> We at Red Hat have noticed that the list of IcedTea local patches has
> been getting large, with some local patches that should have been
> pushed upstream. Also, some IcedTea patches have been committed to
> OpenJDK 7 but not OpenJDK 6.
>
> So, we're going to have a seri
We at Red Hat have noticed that the list of IcedTea local patches has
been getting large, with some local patches that should have been
pushed upstream. Also, some IcedTea patches have been committed to
OpenJDK 7 but not OpenJDK 6.
So, we're going to have a serious attempt to minimize the number
33 matches
Mail list logo
