Changeset: 4b72c2556789
Author:aph
Date: 2009-04-17 15:56 +0100
URL: http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk7/build/langtools/rev/4b72c2556789
6829575: 100028: Debug information is incomplete or missing
Summary: Enable debugging in many places
Reviewed-by: ohair
Contributed-by: Andrew Haley
From: a...@redhat.com
Date: April 17, 2009 8:15:39 AM PDT
To: jdk7-chan...@openjdk.java.net, build-dev@openjdk.java.net
Subject: hg: jdk7/build/langtools: 6829575: 100028: Debug
information is incomplete or missing
Changeset: 4b72c2556789
Author:aph
Date: 2009-04-17 15:56 +0100
URL:
On Apr 17, 2009, at 9:11 AM, Andrew Haley wrote:
Jonathan Gibbons wrote:
It's one thing to be enabling more debug information if you set
flags,
and/or making it more consistent, but I'm not happy with you removing
debug information by default. At least from reading the changeset
diff,
it
Jonathan Gibbons wrote:
>
> On Apr 17, 2009, at 9:11 AM, Andrew Haley wrote:
>
>> Jonathan Gibbons wrote:
>>
>>> It's one thing to be enabling more debug information if you set flags,
>>> and/or making it more consistent, but I'm not happy with you removing
>>> debug information by default. At l
Andrew Haley wrote:
> Jonathan Gibbons wrote:
>> On Apr 17, 2009, at 9:11 AM, Andrew Haley wrote:
>>
>>> Jonathan Gibbons wrote:
>>>
It's one thing to be enabling more debug information if you set flags,
and/or making it more consistent, but I'm not happy with you removing
debug info
Andrew Haley wrote:
Andrew Haley wrote:
Jonathan Gibbons wrote:
On Apr 17, 2009, at 9:11 AM, Andrew Haley wrote:
Jonathan Gibbons wrote:
It's one thing to be enabling more debug information if you set flags,
and/or making it more consistent, but I'm not happy with yo
Jonathan Gibbons wrote:
> Andrew Haley wrote:
>> I'm going to change langtools/jaxp/jaxws to
>>
>> ifeq ($(DEBUG_CLASSFILES), true)
>> ANT_OPTIONS += -Djavac.debug=true
>> ANT_OPTIONS += -Djavac.debuglevel=source,lines,vars
>> endif
>
> Yes. If all you want to do is to provide a consistent wa
Andrew.
Earlier this week, Mark announced that Release Team approval was
required
for the final M3 builds for JDK7. [1]
Even without that, jcheck would require that you have another BugTraq CR
for this issue, even though it is just a modification of a recent fix.
I didn't see
a new CR get
Jonathan Gibbons wrote:
> Andrew.
>
> Earlier this week, Mark announced that Release Team approval was required
> for the final M3 builds for JDK7. [1]
Glad I asked.
> Even without that, jcheck would require that you have another BugTraq CR
> for this issue, even though it is just a modification
On Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 02:06, Andrew Haley wrote:
> Jonathan Gibbons wrote:
>> Andrew.
>>
>> Earlier this week, Mark announced that Release Team approval was required
>> for the final M3 builds for JDK7. [1]
>
> Glad I asked.
>
>> Even without that, jcheck would require that you have another BugT
End of today is the code freeze for the build integration area. The
last putback (Bug ID: 6829575) broke the windows builds.
Chris Hegarty's (SCTP feature) is in the build integration area so the
changes from there need to be pushed to the master prior to build 56.
Please address the above
Xiomara Jayasena wrote:
> End of today is the code freeze for the build integration area. The
> last putback (Bug ID: 6829575) broke the windows builds.
Kelly, please help me out here, my understanding is that my patch
was tested on all the platforms before I pushed it. If my patch
really broke
Jonathan Gibbons wrote:
> Andrew.
>
> Earlier this week, Mark announced that Release Team approval was required
> for the final M3 builds for JDK7. [1]
>
> Even without that, jcheck would require that you have another BugTraq CR
> for this issue, even though it is just a modification of a recent
Jonathan Gibbons wrote:
> Andrew.
>
> Earlier this week, Mark announced that Release Team approval was required
> for the final M3 builds for JDK7. [1]
>
> Even without that, jcheck would require that you have another BugTraq CR
> for this issue, even though it is just a modification of a recent
Dalibor,
I'd suggest raising this to P2, since I think it's a serious regression.
-- Jon
Dalibor Topic wrote:
Jonathan Gibbons wrote:
Andrew.
Earlier this week, Mark announced that Release Team approval was required
for the final M3 builds for JDK7. [1]
Even without that, jcheck would r
I created
6832141: Bug 100045 - Fix for 100028 breaks debug info for class files
-kto
Andrew Haley wrote:
Jonathan Gibbons wrote:
Andrew.
Earlier this week, Mark announced that Release Team approval was required
for the final M3 builds for JDK7. [1]
Glad I asked.
Even without that, jch
Jonathan Gibbons wrote:
> It's one thing to be enabling more debug information if you set flags,
> and/or making it more consistent, but I'm not happy with you removing
> debug information by default. At least from reading the changeset diff,
> it seems there is no way to get what was previously
redhat.com>
*Date: *April 17, 2009 8:15:39 AM PDT
*To: *jdk7-chan...@openjdk.java.net
<mailto:jdk7-chan...@openjdk.java.net>, build-dev@openjdk.java.net
<mailto:build-dev@openjdk.java.net>
*Subject: **hg: jdk7/build/langtools: 6829575: 100028: Debug
information is incomplete o
Kelly O'Hair wrote:
> My fault. I reviewed this and it didn't dawn on me what this did
> until your email.
>
> Yes, the default production builds with javac should be source,lines.
> Sorry, I had native code on the brain and was thinking 'debug off' :^(
How about if I do
ifeq ($(DEBUG_CLASSFILES
Yes, I think you are right. Sorry, I think I sent you on this dead goose
chase. :^(
If this is in the jaxp and jaxws repositories, we need to fix those too.
-kto
Andrew Haley wrote:
Kelly O'Hair wrote:
My fault. I reviewed this and it didn't dawn on me what this did
until your email.
Yes, th
Kelly O'Hair wrote:
> Yes, I think you are right. Sorry, I think I sent you on this dead goose
> chase. :^(
>
> If this is in the jaxp and jaxws repositories, we need to fix those too.
Alright. I'll test a new patch and submit it here.
Part of the problem is, I think, that we took this discussi
Andrew Haley wrote:
Kelly O'Hair wrote:
Yes, I think you are right. Sorry, I think I sent you on this dead goose
chase. :^(
If this is in the jaxp and jaxws repositories, we need to fix those too.
Alright. I'll test a new patch and submit it here.
Part of the problem is, I think, that we
Kelly O'Hair wrote:
>
>
> Andrew Haley wrote:
>> Kelly O'Hair wrote:
>>> Yes, I think you are right. Sorry, I think I sent you on this dead goose
>>> chase. :^(
>>>
>>> If this is in the jaxp and jaxws repositories, we need to fix those too.
>>
>> Alright. I'll test a new patch and submit it her
Andrew Haley wrote:
> Kelly O'Hair wrote:
>>
>> Andrew Haley wrote:
>>> Kelly O'Hair wrote:
Yes, I think you are right. Sorry, I think I sent you on this dead goose
chase. :^(
If this is in the jaxp and jaxws repositories, we need to fix those too.
>>> Alright. I'll test a new
24 matches
Mail list logo
