Source that compiles with many different compilers is generally a
good thing, assuming the code hasn't been ifdef'd to death.
But successful compilation is just part of the picture.
Anyone delivering built openjdk bits,
needs to have tested those bits and that they understand the
quality issues
David Holmes - Sun Microsystems wrote:
Andrew,
Andrew Haley said the following on 06/20/08 20:55:
The changes we had to make to build OpenJDK with gcc 4.3 were to fix
nonstandard C++ code and to turn off -Werror because gcc 4.3 is much
more fulsome in its warnings. Rather than insist on
Andrew,
Andrew Haley said the following on 06/20/08 20:55:
The changes we had to make to build OpenJDK with gcc 4.3 were to fix
nonstandard C++ code and to turn off -Werror because gcc 4.3 is much
more fulsome in its warnings. Rather than insist on using an older
compiler, we would probably be
Erik Trimble wrote:
Consequently, it is very sensitive to bugs and changes in a compiler.
For large organizations (such as those managing a distro), it may make
sense to put in the effort to make sure their standard compiler works
with OpenJDK. It is none too difficult for even such an org
Many code bases qualify as compiler stress tests.
I once recommended that the gcc team use
XEmacs as a stress test because the source code's
unusual C/C++/Lisp style tended to tickle gcc bugs.
I fondly remember the old C preprocessor fails when a
macro call contains a comment longer than 128 lines
Il giorno lun, 31/03/2008 alle 18.37 +0200, Clemens Eisserer ha scritto:
Hello,
I wonder which version of GCC is recommended for building OpenJDK?
4.3 will probably not work out-of-the-box, should I downgrade to 4.2 or 4.1?
Some time ago I developed using the closed java-source, and I had
Mario Torre ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
Il giorno lun, 31/03/2008 alle 18.37 +0200, Clemens Eisserer ha scritto:
Hello,
I wonder which version of GCC is recommended for building OpenJDK?
4.3 will probably not work out-of-the-box, should I downgrade to 4.2 or 4.1?
...
Thanks a lot, lg
Andrew,
Andrew John Hughes said the following on 06/20/08 09:35:
I would hope one of the side effects of moving the JDK from a
proprietary to a community-based Free Software model would be that it
gets built, run and tested on a much wider range of platforms and
compilers. This has already
David Holmes - Sun Microsystems wrote:
Andrew,
Andrew John Hughes said the following on 06/20/08 09:35:
I would hope one of the side effects of moving the JDK from a
proprietary to a community-based Free Software model would be that it
gets built, run and tested on a much wider range of
David Holmes - Sun Microsystems wrote:
Andrew,
Andrew John Hughes said the following on 06/20/08 09:35:
I would hope one of the side effects of moving the JDK from a
proprietary to a community-based Free Software model would be that it
gets built, run and tested on a much wider range of
On 31/03/2008, Volker Simonis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi Clemens,
I recently successfully built the whole OpenJDK using gcc 3.3.3 on
Suse Enterprise Linux 9.3 (see
http://weblogs.java.net/blog/simonis/archive/2008/01/hotspot_develop.html#Build).
I had no linking problems. Currently
Hi Clemens,
I recently successfully built the whole OpenJDK using gcc 3.3.3 on
Suse Enterprise Linux 9.3 (see
http://weblogs.java.net/blog/simonis/archive/2008/01/hotspot_develop.html#Build).
I had no linking problems. Currently I'm building HotSpot only on
OpenSuse 10.0 with gcc 4.0.2.
I think
12 matches
Mail list logo
