[aarch64-port-dev ] RFR: AARCH64: 8064594: Top-level JDK changes

[David Holmes]

On 2/02/2015 10:07 AM, Dean Long wrote:
> On 2/1/2015 4:00 PM, David Holmes wrote:
>> On 1/02/2015 7:56 AM, Dean Long wrote:
>>> On 1/30/2015 12:48 AM, Andrew Dinn wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 30/01/15 08:31, Andrew Haley wrote:
>>>>> On 30/01/15 07:06, Dean Long wrote:
>>>>>> Sorry for the late question, but how is
>>>>>> src/java.base/unix/native/libjli/aarch64/jvm.cfg different from
>>>>>> src/java.base/unix/conf/aarch64/jvm.cfg?  I can't find where the
>>>>>> former
>>>>>> is used.
>>>>> I'm sorry, I have no idea!  I can investigate next week when I
>>>>> get back from FOSDEM.
>>>> It looks like that has been copied there by mistake. There is no such
>>>> file in the aarch64-port jdk9 tree from which stage was derived nor is
>>>> there one in the arch64-port jdk8 tree.
>>>>
>>>> regards,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Andrew Dinn
>>>> -----------
>>>>
>>>
>>> I filed a bug:
>>>
>>> https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8072053
>>
>> Shouldn't this just be fixed as part of the push of the current bug?
>> Separate bugs are only needed for things that will need to be fixed
>> after the merge with mainline.
>>
>
> 8064594 has already been pushed to the staging repo, so I don't see how
> we can fix it in the staging repo without a new bugid.

I hadn't realized these were pushed - I thought they were still under 
discussion.

> And while it would be nice to get it fixed before it goes into mainline,
> I don't want it to cause any delay in the merge with the mainline.

Ok. It just means at the moment the bug is in a disassociative state :) 
If it will be fixed in the staging repo then it needs affects version 
port-stage-aarch64. If it will be fixed post merge then it needs affects 
version 9.

There should also be a request to get arm64 or aarch64 added to the CPU 
list in JBS.

Cheers,
David

> dl
>
>> David
>>
>>> dl
>>>
>