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

[Vladimir Kozlov]

 >> 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.

I would suggest to fix 8072053 in stage repo. We potentially still 2 weeks away from merge into main repo.
I set "Affected Version" 'port-stage-aarch64' for it.

Thanks,
Vladimir

On 2/1/15 4:54 PM, David Holmes wrote:
> 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
>>>>
>>