On Mon, 10 Mar 2025 15:38:45 GMT, Matthias Baesken wrote:
> On Linux there are some special settings for LIBMANAGEMENT_OPTIMIZATION that
> are most likely not needed any more and could be removed.
make/modules/java.management/Lib.gmk line 33:
> 31: ## Build libmanagement
> 32:
> #
On Mon, 10 Mar 2025 15:38:45 GMT, Matthias Baesken wrote:
> On Linux there are some special settings for LIBMANAGEMENT_OPTIMIZATION that
> are most likely not needed any more and could be removed.
While at it I also cleaned up some unused variable issue.
-
PR Comment: https://git.
On Thu, 13 Mar 2025 17:41:28 GMT, Kevin Walls wrote:
> Yes seems likely the same history for libverify, so should be good to do the
> same update there.
I created https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8352015 .
-
PR Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/23966#issuecomment-272398
On Wed, 12 Mar 2025 12:45:48 GMT, Matthias Baesken wrote:
>> On Linux there are some special settings for LIBMANAGEMENT_OPTIMIZATION that
>> are most likely not needed any more and could be removed.
>
> Matthias Baesken has updated the pull request incrementally with one
> additional commit sin
On Wed, 12 Mar 2025 12:45:48 GMT, Matthias Baesken wrote:
>> On Linux there are some special settings for LIBMANAGEMENT_OPTIMIZATION that
>> are most likely not needed any more and could be removed.
>
> Matthias Baesken has updated the pull request incrementally with one
> additional commit sin
On Wed, 12 Mar 2025 12:45:48 GMT, Matthias Baesken wrote:
>> On Linux there are some special settings for LIBMANAGEMENT_OPTIMIZATION that
>> are most likely not needed any more and could be removed.
>
> Matthias Baesken has updated the pull request incrementally with one
> additional commit sin
On Wed, 12 Mar 2025 12:45:48 GMT, Matthias Baesken wrote:
>> On Linux there are some special settings for LIBMANAGEMENT_OPTIMIZATION that
>> are most likely not needed any more and could be removed.
>
> Matthias Baesken has updated the pull request incrementally with one
> additional commit sin
On Wed, 12 Mar 2025 12:45:48 GMT, Matthias Baesken wrote:
>> On Linux there are some special settings for LIBMANAGEMENT_OPTIMIZATION that
>> are most likely not needed any more and could be removed.
>
> Matthias Baesken has updated the pull request incrementally with one
> additional commit sin
On Wed, 12 Mar 2025 12:45:48 GMT, Matthias Baesken wrote:
>> On Linux there are some special settings for LIBMANAGEMENT_OPTIMIZATION that
>> are most likely not needed any more and could be removed.
>
> Matthias Baesken has updated the pull request incrementally with one
> additional commit sin
On Tue, 11 Mar 2025 09:07:40 GMT, Matthias Baesken wrote:
>> My motivation was that the comment brings not much value because it just
>> states the obvious. But if you like I can bring back the comment.
>
> I brought back the comment, maybe it is better to keep it because of
> consistency.
Tha
On Wed, 12 Mar 2025 11:13:41 GMT, Magnus Ihse Bursie wrote:
>> make/modules/java.management/Lib.gmk line 35:
>>
>>> 33:
>>> 34: LIBMANAGEMENT_OPTIMIZATION := HIGH
>>> 35: ifeq ($(call isTargetOs, linux)+$(COMPILE_WITH_DEBUG_SYMBOLS),
>>> true+true)
>>
>> On removal of `ifeq ($(call isTargetOs
On Wed, 12 Mar 2025 11:15:01 GMT, Magnus Ihse Bursie wrote:
>> Matthias Baesken has updated the pull request incrementally with one
>> additional commit since the last revision:
>>
>> Adjust jdk.management/Lib.gmk
>
> src/java.management/share/native/libmanagement/VMManagementImpl.c line 41:
> On Linux there are some special settings for LIBMANAGEMENT_OPTIMIZATION that
> are most likely not needed any more and could be removed.
Matthias Baesken has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional
commit since the last revision:
move code back in VMManagementImpl
--
On Wed, 12 Mar 2025 11:15:02 GMT, Matthias Baesken wrote:
>> On Linux there are some special settings for LIBMANAGEMENT_OPTIMIZATION that
>> are most likely not needed any more and could be removed.
>
> Matthias Baesken has updated the pull request incrementally with one
> additional commit sin
> On Linux there are some special settings for LIBMANAGEMENT_OPTIMIZATION that
> are most likely not needed any more and could be removed.
Matthias Baesken has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional
commit since the last revision:
do not handle the unused variables stuff i
On Tue, 11 Mar 2025 13:18:55 GMT, Kevin Walls wrote:
>> Matthias Baesken has updated the pull request incrementally with one
>> additional commit since the last revision:
>>
>> do not handle the unused variables stuff in this change
>
> make/modules/java.management/Lib.gmk line 35:
>
>> 33:
On Tue, 11 Mar 2025 15:59:09 GMT, Erik Joelsson wrote:
> I think what Kevin is after is having this explanation made clear in the bug
> and PR description so that it's made clear what the change is and intends to
> do.
I changed the description in the JBS issue a bit.
-
PR Commen
On Mon, 10 Mar 2025 17:32:07 GMT, Erik Joelsson wrote:
>> On Linux there are some special settings for LIBMANAGEMENT_OPTIMIZATION that
>> are most likely not needed any more and could be removed.
>
> make/modules/java.management/Lib.gmk line 33:
>
>> 31: ## Build libmanagement
>> 32:
>> ##
On Tue, 11 Mar 2025 14:14:16 GMT, Matthias Baesken wrote:
>> On Linux there are some special settings for LIBMANAGEMENT_OPTIMIZATION that
>> are most likely not needed any more and could be removed.
>
> Matthias Baesken has updated the pull request incrementally with one
> additional commit sin
On Linux there are some special settings for LIBMANAGEMENT_OPTIMIZATION that
are most likely not needed any more and could be removed.
-
Commit messages:
- JDK-8351542
Changes: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/23966/files
Webrev: https://webrevs.openjdk.org/?repo=jdk&pr=23966&ran
On Tue, 11 Mar 2025 09:04:59 GMT, Matthias Baesken wrote:
>> On Linux there are some special settings for LIBMANAGEMENT_OPTIMIZATION that
>> are most likely not needed any more and could be removed.
>
> Matthias Baesken has updated the pull request incrementally with one
> additional commit sin
On Tue, 11 Mar 2025 11:54:29 GMT, Kevin Walls wrote:
> Is it worth making any change here?
This was needed because I removed
DISABLED_WARNINGS_gcc_VMManagementImpl.c
while changing the makefile.
-
PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/23966#discussion_r1989296776
On Tue, 11 Mar 2025 15:19:24 GMT, Matthias Baesken wrote:
> > Was this always redundant, and does removing it make no change to current
> > build options?
> > If so, great, let's remove the useless makefile lines.
>
> There was a bit of discussion before in the thread
> https://mail.openjdk.or
On Tue, 11 Mar 2025 15:04:58 GMT, Kevin Walls wrote:
> Was this always redundant, and does removing it make no change to current
> build options?
> If so, great, let's remove the useless makefile lines.
There was a bit of discussion before in the thread
https://mail.openjdk.org/pipermail/build
On Tue, 11 Mar 2025 15:04:58 GMT, Kevin Walls wrote:
> Remove a compiler directive to avoid unused var warnings, but change the code
> to make it imply a method has no return value when actually it returns a
> value: I think you could argue this either way, so I asked if it's really
> worthwhi
On Tue, 11 Mar 2025 14:14:16 GMT, Matthias Baesken wrote:
>> On Linux there are some special settings for LIBMANAGEMENT_OPTIMIZATION that
>> are most likely not needed any more and could be removed.
>
> Matthias Baesken has updated the pull request incrementally with one
> additional commit sin
> On Linux there are some special settings for LIBMANAGEMENT_OPTIMIZATION that
> are most likely not needed any more and could be removed.
Matthias Baesken has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional
commit since the last revision:
Adjust jdk.management/Lib.gmk
---
On Tue, 11 Mar 2025 13:36:42 GMT, Matthias Baesken wrote:
>> src/java.management/share/native/libmanagement/VMManagementImpl.c line 63:
>>
>>> 61: {
>>> 62: jmmOptionalSupport mos;
>>> 63: jmm_interface->GetOptionalSupport(env, &mos);
>>
>> Is it worth making any change here?
>>
>> We
On Tue, 11 Mar 2025 13:18:55 GMT, Kevin Walls wrote:
> Windows fastdebug and release I just checked and saw -O1, I'm not sure why
> that is.
The change touches only Linux so Windows stays as it is.
> We do the same thing in make/modules/jdk.management/Lib.gmk so both these
> management locati
On Tue, 11 Mar 2025 09:04:59 GMT, Matthias Baesken wrote:
>> On Linux there are some special settings for LIBMANAGEMENT_OPTIMIZATION that
>> are most likely not needed any more and could be removed.
>
> Matthias Baesken has updated the pull request incrementally with one
> additional commit sin
On Mon, 10 Mar 2025 18:51:53 GMT, Matthias Baesken wrote:
>> make/modules/java.management/Lib.gmk line 33:
>>
>>> 31: ## Build libmanagement
>>> 32:
>>>
>>> 33:
>>
>> Why remove the comment header. This pattern i
> On Linux there are some special settings for LIBMANAGEMENT_OPTIMIZATION that
> are most likely not needed any more and could be removed.
Matthias Baesken has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional
commit since the last revision:
Bring back comment
-
Changes
32 matches
Mail list logo
