Le 7 septembre 2019 16:28:37 GMT+02:00, Ricardo Wurmus a
écrit :
>
>I reduced the patch and built openjdk once more to test that it all
>works. I pushed the changes in a series of commits ending with
>6b7e09ae6b to core-updates.
>
>--
>Ricardo
Chank you for all that work!
I reduced the patch and built openjdk once more to test that it all
works. I pushed the changes in a series of commits ending with
6b7e09ae6b to core-updates.
--
Ricardo
Ricardo Wurmus ezt írta (időpont: 2019. szept. 6., Pén
15:40):
>
> Ricardo Wurmus writes:
>
> >>> So, with the following change I was able to build all the way up to the
> >>> latest openjdk. Should we use it despite the introduction of a memory
> >>> leak in a bootstrap JVM? Can we make the p
Ricardo Wurmus writes:
>>> So, with the following change I was able to build all the way up to the
>>> latest openjdk. Should we use it despite the introduction of a memory
>>> leak in a bootstrap JVM? Can we make the patch smaller (fewer uses of
>>> glibc 2.28 or gcc-5)?
>>>
>>> What do you
Hi Gábor,
>> So, with the following change I was able to build all the way up to the
>> latest openjdk. Should we use it despite the introduction of a memory
>> leak in a bootstrap JVM? Can we make the patch smaller (fewer uses of
>> glibc 2.28 or gcc-5)?
>>
>> What do you think?
>>
>
> I will
Efraim Flashner writes:
> currently on bayfront on core-updates ant-bootstrap builds just fine on
> i686-linux, where it fails on master. Another option could be to
> bootstrap 32 bit -> 64 bit
This would be possible, but I consider it a last resort and would very
much like to avoid having to
Hello,
Ricardo Wurmus ezt írta (időpont: 2019. júl. 21., Vas
13:29):
> So, with the following change I was able to build all the way up to the
> latest openjdk. Should we use it despite the introduction of a memory
> leak in a bootstrap JVM? Can we make the patch smaller (fewer uses of
> glibc
So, with the following change I was able to build all the way up to the
latest openjdk. Should we use it despite the introduction of a memory
leak in a bootstrap JVM? Can we make the patch smaller (fewer uses of
glibc 2.28 or gcc-5)?
What do you think?
diff --git a/gnu/packages/java.scm b/gnu/p
Julien Lepiller writes:
> Le Sat, 20 Jul 2019 10:42:25 +0200,
> Ricardo Wurmus a écrit :
>
>> configure: error: Could not find required system headers; install the
>> appropriate files from glibc-headers, libc6-dev and/or libattr-devel,
>> libattr1-dev or use --disable-compile-against-syscalls
Le Sat, 20 Jul 2019 10:42:25 +0200,
Ricardo Wurmus a écrit :
> configure: error: Could not find required system headers; install the
> appropriate files from glibc-headers, libc6-dev and/or libattr-devel,
> libattr1-dev or use --disable-compile-against-syscalls if necessary.
Can you check the co
Ricardo Wurmus writes:
> The build aborts early with “ERROR: FreeType version 2.2.1 or higher is
> required.” So I added this:
>
> (substitute* "patches/freetypeversion.patch"
>(("REQUIRED_FREETYPE_VERSION = 2.2.1")
> "REQUIRED_FREETYPE_VERSION = 2.10.1"))
>
> and icedtea is being bu
Ricardo Wurmus writes:
>>> Illegal instruction? This uses JamVM 2.0.0 as the JVM. I’ll try to
>>> figure out what instruction this is and where it comes from.
>>
>> I hit the same bug now.
>
> Good. We need to figure out why – is it miscompilation? Tuning to a
> different CPU type…?
With t
Hi Gábor,
> Ricardo Wurmus ezt írta (időpont: 2019. júl. 19., P,
> 8:09):
>
>>
>> Ricardo Wurmus writes:
>> > Here’s a shorter patch:
>> >
>> > --8<---cut here---start->8---
>> > diff --git a/gnu/packages/java.scm b/gnu/packages/java.scm
>> > index 403c446a8
Hello,
Ricardo Wurmus ezt írta (időpont: 2019. júl. 19., P,
8:09):
>
> Ricardo Wurmus writes:
> > Here’s a shorter patch:
> >
> > --8<---cut here---start->8---
> > diff --git a/gnu/packages/java.scm b/gnu/packages/java.scm
> > index 403c446a82..bd98784232 100
Ricardo Wurmus writes:
> Here’s a shorter patch:
>
> --8<---cut here---start->8---
> diff --git a/gnu/packages/java.scm b/gnu/packages/java.scm
> index 403c446a82..bd98784232 100644
> --- a/gnu/packages/java.scm
> +++ b/gnu/packages/java.scm
> @@ -152,6 +152,1
On Thu, Jul 18, 2019 at 12:51:23PM +0200, Ricardo Wurmus wrote:
>
> This only adds a comment. If the comment is too short it won’t work.
>
> I suspected some misguided optimizations, so I built jamvm-1-bootstrap
> and classpath-bootstrap with -O0, -O1, and I disabled stripping of
> binaries, but
Ricardo Wurmus writes:
> Ricardo Wurmus writes:
>
>> I have confirmed that this is the problem by replacing “while
>> (VMFile.exists(file.path))” with “while (false)”. The build doesn’t
>> fully complete then either, but it gets past the compilation of the Ant
>> source files. This clears Ja
17 matches
Mail list logo
