Bugids already used in this repository (Re: [FOR REVIEW] hs14 merge for OpenJDK6)
Joseph D. Darcy
Joe.Darcy at Sun.COM
Mon Aug 17 10:07:27 PDT 2009
Andrew John Hughes wrote:
> 2009/8/14 Joe Darcy <Joe.Darcy at sun.com>:
>
>> Andrew John Hughes wrote:
>>
>>> 2009/8/5 Tim Bell <Tim.Bell at sun.com>:
>>>
>>>
>>>> Andrew John Hughes wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Thanks Tim, that seems to have fixed the permissions issue.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> Good.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> There now seems to be an issue with jcheck, as the merge causes some
>>>>> bugids to be repeated:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> Hmmm - how did these changesets come in through two different paths?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> pushing to ssh://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk6/jdk6-gate/hotspot
>>>>> searching for changes
>>>>> remote: adding changesets
>>>>> remote: adding manifests
>>>>> remote: adding file changes
>>>>> remote: added 555 changesets with 4771 changes to 1453 files
>>>>> remote:
>>>>> remote: > Changeset: 100:d821d920b465
>>>>> remote: > Author: kvn
>>>>> remote: > Date: 2008-03-11 11:04
>>>>> remote: >
>>>>> remote: > 6623167: C2 crashed in StoreCMNode::Value
>>>>> remote: > Summary: C2 crashed in StoreCMNode::Value because
>>>>> n->in(MemNode::OopStore) is 0.
>>>>> remote: > Reviewed-by: rasbold, never
>>>>> remote:
>>>>> remote: Bugid 6623167 already used in this repository, in revision 20
>>>>> remote:
>>>>> remote: > Changeset: 104:2c106685d6d0
>>>>> remote: > Author: dcubed
>>>>> remote: > Date: 2008-03-12 18:06
>>>>> remote: >
>>>>> remote: > 6497639: 4/3 Profiling Swing application caused JVM crash
>>>>> remote: > Summary: Make RedefineClasses() interoperate better with
>>>>> class sharing.
>>>>> remote: > Reviewed-by: sspitsyn, jmasa
>>>>> remote:
>>>>> remote: Bugid 6497639 already used in this repository, in revision 20
>>>>> remote:
>>>>> remote: > Changeset: 105:d8b3ef7ee3e5
>>>>> remote: > Author: dcubed
>>>>> remote: > Date: 2008-03-12 18:07
>>>>> remote: >
>>>>> remote: > 6599425: 4/3 OopMapCache::lookup() can cause later crash or
>>>>> assert() failure
>>>>> remote: > Summary: Add should_not_be_cached() to markOop and methodOop
>>>>> and query that status inOopMapCache::lookup()
>>>>> remote: > Reviewed-by: coleenp, sspitsyn, jmasa
>>>>> remote:
>>>>> remote: Bugid 6599425 already used in this repository, in revision 20
>>>>> remote:
>>>>> remote: > Changeset: 240:65fe2bd88839
>>>>> remote: > Author: never
>>>>> remote: > Date: 2008-06-05 21:44
>>>>> remote: >
>>>>> remote: > 6614100: EXCEPTION_ACCESS_VIOLATION while running Eclipse
>>>>> with 1.6.0_05-ea
>>>>> remote: > Reviewed-by: kvn, jrose, rasbold
>>>>> remote:
>>>>> remote: Bugid 6614100 already used in this repository, in revision 20
>>>>> remote:
>>>>> remote: > Changeset: 286:3e82d72933d0
>>>>> remote: > Author: xlu
>>>>> remote: > Date: 2008-06-26 14:15
>>>>> remote: >
>>>>> remote: > 6718830: Hotspot fails to build with gcc 4.3
>>>>> remote: > Summary: Fixed linux make file and couple adlc code to meet
>>>>> the changes of gcc 4.3
>>>>> remote: > Reviewed-by: kamg, igor
>>>>> remote:
>>>>> remote: Bugid 6718830 already used in this repository, in revision 32
>>>>> remote:
>>>>> remote: > Changeset: 289:551f4309f476
>>>>> remote: > Author: ohair
>>>>> remote: > Date: 2008-07-03 10:46
>>>>> remote: >
>>>>> remote: > 6695777: Queens.class should be built from source, not put
>>>>> in source repo
>>>>> remote: > Reviewed-by: kvn
>>>>> remote:
>>>>> remote: Bugid 6695777 already used in this repository, in revision 20
>>>>> remote:
>>>>> remote: > Changeset: 314:54499b980c23
>>>>> remote: > Author: swamyv
>>>>> remote: > Date: 2008-07-29 13:54
>>>>> remote: >
>>>>> remote: > 6710791: Remove files or build from source:maf-1_0.jar,
>>>>> jlfg-1_0.jar
>>>>> remote: > Summary: Removed maf-1_0.jar and jlfg-1_0.jar files.
>>>>> remote: > Reviewed-by: poonam, jjh
>>>>> remote:
>>>>> remote: Bugid 6710791 already used in this repository, in revision 20
>>>>> remote:
>>>>> remote: > Changeset: 360:fa4d1d240383
>>>>> remote: > Author: never
>>>>> remote: > Date: 2008-08-26 15:49
>>>>> remote: >
>>>>> remote: > 6741642: bad enum definition in ciTypeFlow.hpp
>>>>> remote: > Reviewed-by: rasbold, martin
>>>>> remote: > Contributed-by: doko at ubuntu.com
>>>>> remote:
>>>>> remote: Bugid 6741642 already used in this repository, in revision 22
>>>>> remote:
>>>>> remote: > Changeset: 589:748572b86af6
>>>>> remote: > Author: never
>>>>> remote: > Date: 2009-04-07 14:46
>>>>> remote: >
>>>>> remote: > 6636360: compiler/6595044/Main.java test fails with 64bit
>>>>> java on solaris-sparcv9 with SIGSEGV
>>>>> remote: > Reviewed-by: kvn, twisti
>>>>> remote:
>>>>> remote: Bugid 6636360 already used in this repository, in revision 29
>>>>> remote:
>>>>> remote: abort: pretxnchangegroup.0.jcheck hook failed
>>>>> remote: transaction abort!
>>>>> remote: rollback completed
>>>>> abort: unexpected response: empty string
>>>>>
>>>>> Is there a way of getting it to ignore these for this one push? I
>>>>> don't know of a way to just pull out these nine changesets from the
>>>>> 555 waiting to go...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> I think they would need to be added to the jcheck whitelist for all time-
>>>> but that is more of a question for Mark or Kelly.
>>>>
>>>> Tim
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> The early revisions (20, 32) are from OpenJDK6 which was rebased to
>>> allow HotSpot patches to be applied on top. So what happened here is
>>> that, as the fixes were already applied to OpenJDK6, the new
>>> changesets pulled in by the merge will be no-ops but still exist to
>>> keep the change history accurate.
>>>
>>> I think we just need a way of disabling this check. OpenJDK6 already
>>> has whitespace and comment checks turned to lax. See .jcheck:
>>> http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk6/jdk6/hotspot/rev/0282bf49b0f6. There
>>> may already be an option for this bugid check too, but I have no idea
>>> what the format of that file is.
>>>
>>>
>> Andrew, can you please try your push again?
>>
>> I chatted with Mark and the OpenJDK 6 HotSpot Mercurial repository should be
>> configured to do lax checking on the bug ids.
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> -Joe
>>
>>
>
> Sorry, same failure still occurs :(
>
> I didn't see any changes to .jcheck, which I would assume are needed
> to fix this (mr added one for the lax comments with the rebase).
>
*sigh*
Okay; I'll chat with Mark again to get to the bottom of this.
-Joe
More information about the jdk6-dev
mailing list