It's not just you. I see it in our CI as well. It was caused by my
change https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8221764 Will look into it.
/Erik
On 2019-04-04 11:35, Andrew Haley wrote:
This is jdk-jdk, 54423:6c0ab8bd8da5
Building JVM variant 'server' with features 'aot cds cmsgc compiler1
This is jdk-jdk, 54423:6c0ab8bd8da5
Building JVM variant 'server' with features 'aot cds cmsgc compiler1 compiler2
dtrace epsilongc g1gc graal jfr jni-check jvmci jvmti management nmt parallelgc
serialgc services shenandoahgc vm-structs'
Boot cycle build step 2: Building a new JDK image using pr
Erik:
Looks good to me as well.
Tim
On 05/12/17 11:36, Kumar Srinivasan wrote:
Looks good, and thanks for fixing this quickly!.
Kumar
With the removal of the -d64 flag, bootcycle builds started failing.
This patch stops trying to use -d64 completely for the boot jdk since
it shouldn't be n
Looks good, and thanks for fixing this quickly!.
Kumar
With the removal of the -d64 flag, bootcycle builds started failing.
This patch stops trying to use -d64 completely for the boot jdk since
it shouldn't be needed for either JDK 8 or 9. The checks that used
this parameter to see if the JV
> On May 12, 2017, at 11:30 AM, Erik Joelsson wrote:
>
> With the removal of the -d64 flag, bootcycle builds started failing. This
> patch stops trying to use -d64 completely for the boot jdk since it shouldn't
> be needed for either JDK 8 or 9. The checks that used this parameter to see
> if
With the removal of the -d64 flag, bootcycle builds started failing.
This patch stops trying to use -d64 completely for the boot jdk since it
shouldn't be needed for either JDK 8 or 9. The checks that used this
parameter to see if the JVM was 64 bit has been rewritten to instead
look at the ver
