RFE:
https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8211268
Webrev:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~shade/8211268/webrev.01/
Not all GCs are supported by Zero, because it requires implementing the GC
barriers in C++
interpreter. Now that we have jvm features that can selectively disable
particular GCs
Hi Aleksey,
On Fri, 2018-09-28 at 11:49 +0200, Aleksey Shipilev wrote:
> RFE:
> https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8211268
>
> Webrev:
> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~shade/8211268/webrev.01/
>
> Not all GCs are supported by Zero, because it requires implementing
> the GC barriers in C++
On 09/27/2018 04:28 PM, Schmidt, Lutz wrote:
> re break vs. ShouldNotReachHere(), I tried to change semantics as little as
> possible. After
> discussion with colleagues, we concluded that ShouldNotReachHere() is the
> better choice. Code was
> modified accordingly. Your concerns re. coding style
Hi,
On Thu, 2018-09-27 at 20:03 +0200, Aleksey Shipilev wrote:
> On 09/27/2018 04:39 PM, Baesken, Matthias wrote:
> > Hi Thomas, do you know some fast and helpful person who can bring
> > the INCLUDE_JFR and ! INCLUDE_JFR cases in sync ?
> > (or maybe there was a reason to have these difference
Hi,
On Fri, 2018-09-28 at 06:53 +, Baesken, Matthias wrote:
> Hi Aleksey, sounds great - thanks for looking into this JFR
> generating stuff and figuring out what to do where 😊 !
>
> So I guess we do not need my AIX-related patch any more ,
> after your change is in ( and the co
On 09/28/2018 12:47 PM, Thomas Schatzl wrote:
> Btw, I closed out a few bugs created in JIRA as apparent duplicate of
> this one. If there is something wrong with that, please reopen with a
> comment.
I'd probably do that in reverse: if AIX folks can confirm that JFR events fix
(https://bugs.openj
Hi,
On Fri, 2018-09-28 at 12:51 +0200, Aleksey Shipilev wrote:
> On 09/28/2018 12:47 PM, Thomas Schatzl wrote:
> > Btw, I closed out a few bugs created in JIRA as apparent duplicate
> > of
> > this one. If there is something wrong with that, please reopen with
> > a
> > comment.
>
> I'd probably
Any more reviewers for this?
Thanks,
Severin
On Wed, 2018-09-26 at 08:20 -0400, David Holmes wrote:
> On 26/09/2018 7:52 AM, Severin Gehwolf wrote:
> > Hi David,
> >
> > Thanks for the review!
> >
> > On Wed, 2018-09-26 at 07:39 -0400, David Holmes wrote:
> > > Hi Severin,
> > >
> > > Changes
I have been bitten by this change - not something too difficult to
handle, but I think it can be confusing - e.g. if you run 'make
reconfigure' the old config name will be preserved, but if you run 'sh
configure' from scratch you will have two configuration sitting beside
each other and any mak
On 09/28/2018 12:00 PM, Severin Gehwolf wrote:
> On Fri, 2018-09-28 at 11:49 +0200, Aleksey Shipilev wrote:
>> RFE:
>> https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8211268
>>
>> Webrev:
>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~shade/8211268/webrev.01/
>>
>> Not all GCs are supported by Zero, because it requir
Hello,
Looks ok to me.
It will look confusing on linux-x64 where it first says:
checking if zgc should be built... yes
But then quietly disables it anyway. Not a big issue and probably not
worth fixing given that zero on that platform is a rather rare
configuration (unless for testing purpos
Build changes look ok to me.
/Erik
On 2018-09-26 04:26, Severin Gehwolf wrote:
Hi,
Could I please get reviews for this JDK 8 backport which fixes some
tooling issues on Linux ppc64le? Prior this patch, a ppc64le build
would report as "ppc64" via os.arch system property which breaks
tooling su
On Fri, 2018-09-28 at 08:48 -0700, Erik Joelsson wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Looks ok to me.
>
> It will look confusing on linux-x64 where it first says:
>
> checking if zgc should be built... yes
>
> But then quietly disables it anyway. Not a big issue and probably not
> worth fixing given that zero
On Fri, 2018-09-28 at 08:56 -0700, Erik Joelsson wrote:
> Build changes look ok to me.
Thanks for the review, Erik!
Cheers,
Severin
> /Erik
>
>
> On 2018-09-26 04:26, Severin Gehwolf wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > Could I please get reviews for this JDK 8 backport which fixes some
> > tooling issues
On 09/28/2018 05:57 PM, Severin Gehwolf wrote:
> On Fri, 2018-09-28 at 08:48 -0700, Erik Joelsson wrote:
>> But then quietly disables it anyway. Not a big issue and probably not
>> worth fixing given that zero on that platform is a rather rare
>> configuration (unless for testing purposes).
>
>
> On Sep 24, 2018, at 4:31 PM, Magnus Ihse Bursie
> wrote:
> The second warning about the copy constructor is, for what I can tell, a
> highly valid warning and the code it warned on was indeed broken. As far as I
> can tell, in a derived copy constructor you should always explicitly
> initial
16 matches
Mail list logo
