At 9:46 PM -0700 3/24/11, John Rose wrote:
>On Mar 24, 2011, at 9:01 PM, Stephen Bannasch wrote:
>
>>> Except for MethodTypeTest, this is the group of failures you might get if
>>> jtreg were using the wrong (out-of-date) javac. That's odd, because I
>>> think jtreg's -jdk: option pulls javac ou
On Mar 24, 2011, at 9:01 PM, Stephen Bannasch wrote:
>> Except for MethodTypeTest, this is the group of failures you might get if
>> jtreg were using the wrong (out-of-date) javac. That's odd, because I think
>> jtreg's -jdk: option pulls javac out of the same place as the JVM and JDK
>> runti
At 8:06 PM -0700 3/24/11, John Rose wrote:
On Mar 24, 2011, at 11:24 AM, Stephen Bannasch wrote:
Today the build completes fine but I still only get one java/lang/invoke test
passing.
FAILED: java/lang/invoke/6987555/Test6987555.java
FAILED: java/lang/invoke/6991596/Test6991596.java
Passed: j
At 7:52 PM -0700 3/24/11, John Rose wrote:
>On Mar 24, 2011, at 11:24 AM, Stephen Bannasch wrote:
>
>> At 2:36 AM -0700 3/23/11, John Rose wrote:
>>> With the renaming going on, the code is changing rapidly. But I think we
>>> are converging. Please let me know what happens with the next build.
>
On Mar 24, 2011, at 11:24 AM, Stephen Bannasch wrote:
> Today the build completes fine but I still only get one java/lang/invoke test
> passing.
>
> FAILED: java/lang/invoke/6987555/Test6987555.java
> FAILED: java/lang/invoke/6991596/Test6991596.java
> Passed: java/lang/invoke/ClassValueTest.jav
On Mar 24, 2011, at 11:24 AM, Stephen Bannasch wrote:
> At 2:36 AM -0700 3/23/11, John Rose wrote:
>> With the renaming going on, the code is changing rapidly. But I think we
>> are converging. Please let me know what happens with the next build.
>
> Today the build completes fine but I still o
At 2:36 AM -0700 3/23/11, John Rose wrote:
>With the renaming going on, the code is changing rapidly. But I think we are
>converging. Please let me know what happens with the next build.
Today the build completes fine but I still only get one java/lang/invoke test
passing.
FAILED: java/lang/in
With the renaming going on, the code is changing rapidly. But I think we are
converging. Please let me know what happens with the next build.
Best wishes,
-- John
On Mar 20, 2011, at 6:54 PM, Stephen Bannasch wrote:
> At 5:49 AM + 3/20/11, john.r.r...@oracle.com wrote:
>> Changeset: 044bd
On Mar 21, 2011, at 1:29 AM, Rémi Forax wrote:
> Le 21/03/2011 02:54, Stephen Bannasch a écrit :
>> At 5:49 AM + 3/20/11, john.r.r...@oracle.com wrote:
>>> Changeset: 044bdcf75712
>>> Author:jrose
>>> Date: 2011-03-19 22:49 -0700
>>> URL: http://hg.openjdk.java.net/mlvm/mlvm/ho
Le 21/03/2011 02:54, Stephen Bannasch a écrit :
> At 5:49 AM + 3/20/11, john.r.r...@oracle.com wrote:
>> Changeset: 044bdcf75712
>> Author:jrose
>> Date: 2011-03-19 22:49 -0700
>> URL: http://hg.openjdk.java.net/mlvm/mlvm/hotspot/rev/044bdcf75712
>>
>> rebase to jdk7-b132 in bs
At 5:49 AM + 3/20/11, john.r.r...@oracle.com wrote:
>Changeset: 044bdcf75712
>Author:jrose
>Date: 2011-03-19 22:49 -0700
>URL: http://hg.openjdk.java.net/mlvm/mlvm/hotspot/rev/044bdcf75712
>
>rebase to jdk7-b132 in bsd-port
>
>+ bsd.patch
>- meth-7010180.patch
>! meth-impl-683987
Changeset: 044bdcf75712
Author:jrose
Date: 2011-03-19 22:49 -0700
URL: http://hg.openjdk.java.net/mlvm/mlvm/hotspot/rev/044bdcf75712
rebase to jdk7-b132 in bsd-port
+ bsd.patch
- meth-7010180.patch
! meth-impl-6839872.2.patch
! meth-impl-6839872.patch
! meth-rename-7012648.patch
!
12 matches
Mail list logo