> On Mar 17, 2020, at 3:28 PM, Andy Herrick wrote:
>
> But the executables in the jdk itself are signed, including those packaged as
> a resource like jpackageapplauncher itself.
Not that there isn’t good reason to do this but it appears to be the issue for
GraalVM.
I set up a shell script
Adding -XX:+CompactStrings seems reasonable to me. (And I think it's a
betters solution than, say, increasing -Xmx to allow running without
compact strings.)
-Brent
On 3/17/20 10:46 AM, Brian Burkhalter wrote:
OK, I am fine with that. I’ll leave it open for the moment though in case
anyone
Hi Ivan,
I see the CSR is approved.
I'm fine with the change.
Regards, Roger
On 2/25/20 3:18 PM, Ivan Gerasimov wrote:
Thank you Roger for reviewing CSR and the release note!
On 2/11/20 12:49 PM, Roger Riggs wrote:
Hi Ivan,
Will this have enough of a compatibility concern to warrant a
> On Mar 17, 2020, at 2:13 PM, Brian Burkhalter
> wrote:
>
>> The new code reflects this improvement and also adds a couple of additional
>> tests.
>>
>> Passes tier1 tests.
>
> A tier 1-3 test run is in progress.
No failures related to this patch in the usual CI tiers 1-3 test run across
Hi,
The jpackage tool on macOS supports adding a custom volume icon to DMGs
that it produces, but this functionality is currently broken.
** Analysis
--
A custom volume icon added as "*-volume.icns" in the resource directory
gets copied to the temporary DMG when building but is
Hi Alan,
Thanks for the comment. See my comments inlined below.
Here is the updated webrev:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~mchung/jdk15/webrevs/8240975/webrev.01
On 3/16/20 3:47 AM, Alan Bateman wrote:
The difference between the 2 constructors might not be obvious at the
use sites. I'm just
Hi Magnus, Erik,
Thanks for the pointers, I'm not familiar with those early build
intricacies.
Updated:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~rriggs/webrev-stubs-classes-8241073-2/
More cleanup:
- cleanup of ZipSource.gmk and autoconf/spec.gmk.in and Docs.gmk
- The mystery of ActivationGroup_Stub
So much the better!
> On Mar 17, 2020, at 3:05 PM, Raffaello Giulietti
> wrote:
> No, the javadoc is identical, so there's no need to update the CSR.
>
> R
>
> On 2020-03-17 22:14, Brian Burkhalter wrote:
>> Raffaello,
>>
>> Is there any change which would necessitate updating the CSR?
No, the javadoc is identical, so there's no need to update the CSR.
R
On 2020-03-17 22:14, Brian Burkhalter wrote:
Raffaello,
Is there any change which would necessitate updating the CSR?
Thanks,
Brian
On Mar 17, 2020, at 2:13 PM, Brian Burkhalter
mailto:brian.burkhal...@oracle.com>>
Hi Naoto,
Looks good to me.
-Joe
On 3/17/20 1:58 PM, naoto.s...@oracle.com wrote:
Hello,
Please review the fix to the following issue:
https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8241082
The proposed changeset is located at:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~naoto/8241082/webrev.00/
It is simply
Raffaello,
Is there any change which would necessitate updating the CSR?
Thanks,
Brian
> On Mar 17, 2020, at 2:13 PM, Brian Burkhalter
> wrote:
>
>> there's a new version of the documentation [1] for the attached patch to
>> solve the long standing issues described in [2]. The CSR referred
Hi Raffaello,
> On Mar 17, 2020, at 12:38 PM, Raffaello Giulietti
> wrote:
>
> there's a new version of the documentation [1] for the attached patch to
> solve the long standing issues described in [2]. The CSR referred to in the
> subject is in [3].
>
> Besides many improvements in the
Hello,
Please review the fix to the following issue:
https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8241082
The proposed changeset is located at:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~naoto/8241082/webrev.00/
It is simply updating the data file. Since there is no change in
equivalency of language tags, no
The javadoc and specdiff have been updated in place to reflect the
recent discussion [1][2] to change the default of hidden classes that a
hidden class may be unloaded even when the defining loader is reachable
unless `ClassOption::STRONG` is specified such that the hidden class has
the same
> On Mar 17, 2020, at 3:28 PM, Andy Herrick wrote:
>
> yes jpackage itself will not do any signing unless you use the various
> signing option(s).
>
> But the executables in the jdk itself are signed, including those packaged as
> a resource like jpackageapplauncher itself.
>
> The app
yes jpackage itself will not do any signing unless you use the various
signing option(s).
But the executables in the jdk itself are signed, including those
packaged as a resource like jpackageapplauncher itself.
The app executable itself, in your case
>
>
> codesign -dv outFastR/FastRGraalHP.app
> Executable=/Users/mjh/HalfPipe/HalfPipe_jpkg/outFastR/FastRGraalHP.app/Contents/MacOS/FastRGraalHP
> Identifier=jpackageapplauncher
> …
>
> It does appear that jpackage is doing some default code signing.
>
Running verbose I see no indication,
OK, I am fine with that. I’ll leave it open for the moment though in case
anyone else has a comment.
Brian
> On Mar 17, 2020, at 10:39 AM, Andrew Leonard
> wrote:
>
> I see what you mean, but it's not really the point of the the BigInteger
> test, which is testing for an Arithmetic
I see what you mean, but it's not really the point of the the BigInteger
test, which is testing for an Arithmetic exception:
The problem test is the one for 8021204 which constructs a String of "0"'s
2*31 long! which if you use 2bytes for each "0" is very likely to run out
of memory! The
I was looking at GraalVM in order to try out FastR, a jre based R language
implementation.
It seemed to me if it was actually a standalone JRE I should be able to use
jpackage to turn it into an application. Or use my usual application for trying
things out but just replace the runtime.
It
To clarify, could the compact strings setting be detected and maybe add another
@run tag and expect an OOME? Not sure this is critical.
Brian
> On Mar 17, 2020, at 8:06 AM, Brian Burkhalter
> wrote:
>
> You’re welcome.
>
> I see. Let’s leave this hang out a bit for further comment. Also, is
You’re welcome.
I see. Let’s leave this hang out a bit for further comment. Also, is a test
possible, or a modification of an existing test?
Thanks,
Brian
> On Mar 17, 2020, at 7:52 AM, Andrew Leonard
> wrote:
>
> Thanks Brian,
> With Eclipse OpenJ9 you see this, which is very similar to
Thanks Brian,
With Eclipse OpenJ9 you see this, which is very similar to if you force
Hotspot with -XX:-CompactStrings:
Exception in thread "main" java.lang.OutOfMemoryError
at
java.base/java.lang.AbstractStringBuilder.hugeCapacity(AbstractStringBuilder.java:214)
at
Hi Andrew,
I can help you. The change looks good but what do you see when you run the test
without the change on a non-Hotspot VM?
Thanks,
Brian
> On Mar 17, 2020, at 7:36 AM, Andrew Leonard
> wrote:
>
> Please can I get a sponsor and reviews for the following "patch" to the
>
Hi,
Please can I get a sponsor and reviews for the following "patch" to the
SymmetricRangeTests.java test, for bug
https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8241097
patch: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~aleonard/8241097/webrev.00/
The current testcase makes the assumption that -XX:+CompactStrings
On 2020-03-17 14:17, Erik Joelsson wrote:
Hello,
That looks better, but there are still some more things to remove.
This whole block:
# Targets for running rmic.
$(eval $(call DeclareRecipesForPhase, RMIC, \
Hello,
That looks better, but there are still some more things to remove. This
whole block:
# Targets for running rmic.
$(eval $(call DeclareRecipesForPhase, RMIC, \
TARGET_SUFFIX := rmic, \
FILE_PREFIX
27 matches
Mail list logo