8203287: Zero fails to build after JDK-8199712 (Flight Recorder)

[Severin Gehwolf]

Hi Martin,

On Wed, 2018-05-16 at 15:46 +0000, Doerr, Martin wrote:
> Hi Severin,
> 
> I'd prefer to push PPC64/s390 first because it contains the final solution.
> If you want to push earlier, please just omit the change to os_perf_linux.cpp.
> Or you can change that file to the final solution. I'd be fine with that, too.

OK. I'll wait for 8203288 to go in first and get the Zero parts in
after.

Thanks,
Severin

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Aleksey Shipilev [mailto:shade at redhat.com] 
> Sent: Mittwoch, 16. Mai 2018 17:40
> To: Severin Gehwolf <sgehwolf at redhat.com>; Doerr, Martin <martin.doerr at sap.com>; hotspot-dev <hotspot-dev at openjdk.java.net>
> Subject: Re: 8203287: Zero fails to build after JDK-8199712 (Flight Recorder)
> 
> On 05/16/2018 05:38 PM, Severin Gehwolf wrote:
> > Hi Martin, Aleksey,
> > 
> > On Wed, 2018-05-16 at 17:08 +0200, Aleksey Shipilev wrote:
> > > On 05/16/2018 05:04 PM, Doerr, Martin wrote:
> > > > JDK-8203288 contains a change of os_perf_linux.cpp using:
> > > > #include CPU_HEADER(vm_version_ext)
> > > > (See http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~mdoerr/8203288_ppc64_s390_build/webrev.00/)
> > > > 
> > > > Can you check if that works for you, please?
> > 
> > That works, thanks!
> > 
> > How do you want to coordinate getting both patches integrated? Shall I
> > wait for your change to get integrated or should I get it in as is
> > first and you'll resolve the merge conflict changing to your version in
> > os_perf_linux.cpp?
> 
> Personally, I'd prefer PPC64/S390 to go in first, because it makes more sense to have CPU_HEADER.
> Then Zero can piggyback on it.
> 
> -Aleksey
>