Greetings, jar team!
Recent changes by Xueming have made building rt.jar an order of
magnitude faster.
But it's still too slow for our taste.
Here's another order of magnitude...
In our tests, this reduces rt.jar build time to 2 sec (!)
diff --git a/src/share/classes/sun/tools/jar/Main.java
b/sr
Martin, thanks for the patch, #6834805 has been filed for this issue.
Will take a look.
Martin Buchholz wrote:
Greetings, jar team!
Recent changes by Xueming have made building rt.jar an order of
magnitude faster.
But it's still too slow for our taste.
Here's another order of magnitude...
In
On Mon, Apr 27, 2009 at 17:54, Martin Buchholz wrote:
> Someone who cares about the Makefiles can also try to remove the
> 16000 gratuitous -C flags that makes jar's life "jar hell".
Hmmm Apparently I care enough.
Kelly (or Tim?), please review.
diff --git a/make/common/Release.gmk b/make/c
On Tue, Apr 28, 2009 at 16:27, Martin Buchholz wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 27, 2009 at 17:54, Martin Buchholz wrote:
>> Someone who cares about the Makefiles can also try to remove the
>> 16000 gratuitous -C flags that makes jar's life "jar hell".
>
> Hmmm Apparently I care enough.
>
> Kelly (or Tim
Since writing this, I have learned, to my horror, that the
behavior of the -C flag differs from the behavior in tar in that
- -C is not sticky - it applies only to the one following argument
- the path is relative to the JDK's current directory, not the
previous -C directory.
despite assurances
2009/4/29 Martin Buchholz :
> Since writing this, I have learned, to my horror, that the
> behavior of the -C flag differs from the behavior in tar in that
>
> - -C is not sticky - it applies only to the one following argument
>
> - the path is relative to the JDK's current directory, not the
> pre
Hi Andrew,
I don't recall all the details, but I probably backported all-at-once
because it was a little easier for me to do so - it reflected the
engineering that was actually done. I care more about
the quality of the openjdk7 mercurial history. In this case
the information *is* available to
2009/9/10 Martin Buchholz :
> Hi Andrew,
>
> I don't recall all the details, but I probably backported all-at-once
> because it was a little easier for me to do so - it reflected the
> engineering that was actually done. I care more about
> the quality of the openjdk7 mercurial history. In this
Andrew John Hughes wrote:
> FWIW, I'm pretty sure I'm not alone in saying I'd much prefer to
> receive these 'uninteresting' mails.
This particular back-port mail would have been very interesting to
us, since it has a huge impact on build times on some architectures.
Andrew.
On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 08:25, Andrew Haley wrote:
> Andrew John Hughes wrote:
>
>> FWIW, I'm pretty sure I'm not alone in saying I'd much prefer to
>> receive these 'uninteresting' mails.
>
> This particular back-port mail would have been very interesting to
> us, since it has a huge impact on bui
Martin Buchholz wrote:
On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 08:25, Andrew Haley wrote:
Andrew John Hughes wrote:
FWIW, I'm pretty sure I'm not alone in saying I'd much prefer to
receive these 'uninteresting' mails.
This particular back-port mail would have been very interesting to
us, since
11 matches
Mail list logo
