Sorry, I should never have named a function (not even a static one)
'execvpe'. It's amusing that I broke myself by requesting that glibc
implement 'execvpe'.
Here's the webrev:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~martin/webrevs/openjdk7/rename-execvpe/
For those following things, there are now 3 pendin
2009/7/9 Martin Buchholz :
> Sorry, I should never have named a function (not even a static one)
> 'execvpe'. It's amusing that I broke myself by requesting that glibc
> implement 'execvpe'.
>
> Here's the webrev:
>
> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~martin/webrevs/openjdk7/rename-execvpe/
>
> For thos
Andrew John Hughes wrote:
2009/7/9 Martin Buchholz :
Sorry, I should never have named a function (not even a static one)
'execvpe'. It's amusing that I broke myself by requesting that glibc
implement 'execvpe'.
Here's the webrev:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~martin/webrevs/openjdk7/rename-e
2009/7/28 Michael McMahon :
> Andrew John Hughes wrote:
>>
>> 2009/7/9 Martin Buchholz :
>>
>>>
>>> Sorry, I should never have named a function (not even a static one)
>>> 'execvpe'. It's amusing that I broke myself by requesting that glibc
>>> implement 'execvpe'.
>>>
>>> Here's the webrev:
>>>
>
Andrew John Hughes wrote:
2009/7/28 Michael McMahon :
Andrew John Hughes wrote:
2009/7/9 Martin Buchholz :
rename-execvpe is the one I'm particularly concerned about. It's a
trivial patch, but without it, OpenJDK builds are going to start
failing as distros move to the new
On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 06:08, Michael McMahon wrote:
> Andrew John Hughes wrote:
>>
>> 2009/7/28 Michael McMahon :
>>
>>>
>>> Andrew John Hughes wrote:
>>>
2009/7/9 Martin Buchholz :
>>>
>>
>> rename-execvpe is the one I'm particularly concerned about. It's a
>> trivial patch,
2009/7/28 Martin Buchholz :
> On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 06:08, Michael McMahon wrote:
>> Andrew John Hughes wrote:
>>>
>>> 2009/7/28 Michael McMahon :
>>>
Andrew John Hughes wrote:
>
> 2009/7/9 Martin Buchholz :
>
>
>>>
>>> rename-execvpe is the one I'm particularl
Of course, it's all my fault.
First, for having used a symbol that libc implementers are likely to add.
Second, for actually asking glibc implementers to add that very symbol.
Third, for forgetting that this is an issue in openjdk6 as well.
Anyways, I intend to commit these patches to their respec
Martin Buchholz wrote:
Of course, it's all my fault.
First, for having used a symbol that libc implementers are likely to add.
Second, for actually asking glibc implementers to add that very symbol.
Third, for forgetting that this is an issue in openjdk6 as well.
Anyways, I intend to commit thes
Joe, thanks for the review.
I've pushed fixes for this problem to openjdk6 and openjdk7/tl
Martin
On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 21:22, Joseph D. Darcy wrote:
> Martin Buchholz wrote:
>>
>> Of course, it's all my fault.
>> First, for having used a symbol that libc implementers are likely to add.
>> Sec
Martin Buchholz wrote:
Joe, thanks for the review.
Thanks for the fixes :-)
-Joe
I've pushed fixes for this problem to openjdk6 and openjdk7/tl
Martin
On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 21:22, Joseph D. Darcy wrote:
Martin Buchholz wrote:
Of course, it's all my fault.
First, for having u
2009/7/30 Joseph D. Darcy :
> Martin Buchholz wrote:
>>
>> Joe, thanks for the review.
>>
>
> Thanks for the fixes :-)
>
> -Joe
>
>> I've pushed fixes for this problem to openjdk6 and openjdk7/tl
>>
>> Martin
>>
>> On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 21:22, Joseph D. Darcy wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Martin Buchholz wro
12 matches
Mail list logo