RFR: Some build fixes for gcc4.7

[Roman Kennke]

Am Mittwoch, den 12.12.2012, 19:27 +1000 schrieb David Holmes:
> On 12/12/2012 6:19 PM, Roman Kennke wrote:
> > Hi David,
> >
> >  From my perspective, there are the following proposed changes not
> > committed yet:
> 
> Sorry I was only referring to gcc4.7 specific issues.
> 
> For the other patches you are doing the right thing, it is just 
> unfortunate that there is a lot happening right now (M6 is just around 
> the corner) and people have a lot on their plate.

Aha, good to know. This is fine then. :-)

Cheers,
Roman

> 
> David
> -----
> 
> 
> > 1.
> > http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/hotspot-dev/2012-November/007294.html
> >
> >  From that one, only the jdk part is missing:
> > http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~rkennke/shark/webrev-jdk-00/
> >
> > I think it's the only one with a bug-id even:
> > 8003868: fix shark for latest HotSpot and LLVM
> >
> > 2. Then there is the library_call build fixes. (Which have also been
> > proposed by Yasumasa Suenaga, which now got the bug id 8004898 and
> > Christian is working on it.)
> >
> > Then I posted a bunch of others on hotspot-compiler-dev (maybe
> > hotspot-dev would have been better?)
> >
> > 3. Fix OSR in Shark for non-empty incoming stack
> > http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/hotspot-compiler-dev/2012-December/009087.html
> >
> > This one got a little review by David Chase, for which I will send an
> > updated webrev soon. I was hoping to get some more feedback though, or
> > even a bug-id.
> >
> > 4. Implement deoptimization support in Shark
> > http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/hotspot-compiler-dev/2012-December/009088.html
> >
> > This one did not get any feedback yet, no bug-id either.
> >
> > 5. Fix volatile float field access in Shark
> > http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/hotspot-compiler-dev/2012-December/009089.html
> >
> > Same, no feedback, no bug-id.
> >
> > 6. Enable JSR292 support in Shark
> > http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/hotspot-compiler-dev/2012-December/009090.html
> >
> > Got some positive feedback from John Rose, but no bug id and no
> > progress.
> >
> > Please let me know if I should do anything different in the future
> > (different mailing list, different format, ..) Also, if it helps, I can
> > group all those changes into one big change, I just thought that it is
> > easier to review in logical chunks (otherwise the changes would
> > interleave and it's difficult to say what belongs to what).
> >
> >
> > Thanks for your cooperation!
> >
> > Best regards,
> > Roman
> >
> >
> >> I think the library_call issue is the only thing that still needs
> >> working on.
> >>
> >> David
> >>
> >> On 12/12/2012 8:17 AM, Coleen Phillimore wrote:
> >>>
> >>> On 12/11/2012 05:00 PM, Roman Kennke wrote:
> >>>> Am Dienstag, den 11.12.2012, 16:53 -0500 schrieb Coleen Phillimore:
> >>>>> Now I hit this library_call.cpp compilation error. Has it been pushed
> >>>>> yet? I was going to piggyback this with another cleanup that I was
> >>>>> making if not.
> >>>> No, it has not been pushed yet. :-(
> >>>>
> >>>> Seems like all my patches have become stuck in the queue. Is there
> >>>> anything that I can do to make them move forward? Should I file them in
> >>>> openjdk bugzilla?
> >>>
> >>> What you are doing is the right way to submit patches. We don't really
> >>> monitor openjdk bugzilla. I think people are working on your other patches.
> >>>
> >>> thanks,
> >>> Coleen
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Regards,
> >>>> Roman
> >>>>
> >>>>> thanks,
> >>>>> Coleen
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On 12/07/2012 11:28 AM, Roman Kennke wrote:
> >>>>>> Am Donnerstag, den 06.12.2012, 18:40 -0500 schrieb Coleen Phillimore:
> >>>>>>> The changes to binaryTreeDictionary.cpp are already in the hotspot-gc
> >>>>>>> repository and will/have been pushed up to main already. They should
> >>>>>>> already be in hotspot-comp.
> >>>>>> Ah great, good to see, thanks! :-)
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Which compiler complains about the library_call.cpp changes? I have an
> >>>>>>> unstable ubuntu 12.10 system in order to run with gcc 4.7.2 and this
> >>>>>>> file compiles fine for me as is.
> >>>>>> This happens on Fedora, gcc 4.7.2. Fedora tends to incorporate
> >>>>>> improvements from dev versions sometimes... I agree with David, it
> >>>>>> would
> >>>>>> be good to fix in any case.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Thanks,
> >>>>>> Roman
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >
> >