SA changes look ok - the IA64 stuff isn’t needed as we don’t support it and will remove it.
/Staffan > On 19 jan 2015, at 09:29, Erik Joelsson <erik.joels...@oracle.com> wrote: > > Hello, > > Any chance someone from serviceability could take a look at this? > > /Erik > > On 2015-01-12 03:45, David Holmes wrote: >> Hi Erik, >> >> On 10/01/2015 12:34 AM, Erik Joelsson wrote: >>> Hello, >>> >>> Please review this patch which fixes the verify-modules target when >>> running bootcycle build, and also reenables verify-modules when running >>> "make images". >>> >>> There were two problems: >>> >>> * The bootcycle build configuration was broken so that both the normal >>> and the bootcycle build used the same HOTSPOT_DIST directory. The >>> consequence of this was that verify-modules worked when run on its own, >>> but not if bootcycle-images had been run before. This is fixed in >>> bootcycle-spec.gmk.in. >>> >>> * Since javac in JDK 9 no longer emits classes for implicitly compiled >>> sources, certain classes in sa-jdi.jar were not compiled during the >>> bootcycle build. I fixed this by adding the missing classes to sa.files. >>> Not having the classes there might have been intentional (in at least >>> some cases), but since they were compiled anyway, I felt it safer to >>> just add them to the list to fix this issue. If these classes shouldn't >>> be included, then they need to be properly removed in a followup fix. >> >> SA is owned by serviceability - cc'd. Changes seem okay as a solution to >> immediate problem, but I don't think anyone expects the IA64 stuff to still >> be needed. It is on the todo list to eradicate IA64 IIRC. >> >> Looks like there is limited awareness of the need to keep sa.files up to >> date. :( >> >> Thanks, >> David >> >>> Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8067479 >>> Webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~erikj/8067479/webrev.01/ >>> >>> Since this is changing hotspot, I assume it will need to go in through a >>> hotspot forest. Which one? >>> >>> /Erik >
