RFR(S): 8016476: PPC64 (part 1): reenable CORE build

[Volker Simonis]

On Friday, June 14, 2013, Lindenmaier, Goetz wrote:

> Hi Vladimir,
>
> > Did you got JBS notification about Part 2 and Part 3 bugs? I tried to
> > use "share" feature.
> > And I will file bugs for 4-5 later today.
> No I didn't.  Let's see what happens with 4, 5.   But please mail the
> bug-id to me so I don't have to wait for JBS until we are sure the
> "share" feature works.
>
>
I saw that the notifications have been posted to the ppc-aix-port mailing
list but rejected because they have not been posted from subscriber of the
list. I couldn't even route them trough because they were gone once I
logged into the administrative interface of the mailing list.

I have now added ^.*@jbs.oracle.com to the patterns of valid senders so
hopefully. the nextnotification will appear instantly on the list.
Nevertheless my impressions that the notification mails are only send
out after the bug becomes visible to the world outside Oracle, so I
think it would be wise anyway to send the Bug ID and title to the list once
you created them.


> > I think, we (me or Albert when we get committer status) should do the
> > sync because we need to sync closed parts also. It would be nice to do
> > it at the same time and have check point (archived JPRT build) for that.
> I think that's ok for now, but later I expect more risks on our code, and
> then we should do it.
>
> > I would prefer if all people who push into staging repos to have
> > jcheck hook in their ~/.hgrc  to avoid problems for all of us:
> I have to disable jcheck if I push to our other repos because we have
> no bugids there.  I run it in general on the committed change and do
> commit --amend if there is a problem.  But when merging the last
> time I found I can not do that on a merge changeset.
>
> Besides that, if we are through with 2 and 3 I don't expect that
> many effects on the closed ports any more.  Only changes as adding
> an empty function or the like.
>
> Best regards,
>   Goetz.
>
>
>
> >
> > Best regards and thanks for the help so far,
> >    Goetz.
> >
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: ppc-aix-port-dev-bounces at openjdk.java.net [mailto:
> ppc-aix-port-dev-bounces at openjdk.java.net] On Behalf Of Vladimir Kozlov
> > Sent: Friday, June 14, 2013 8:34 PM
> > Cc: ppc-aix-port-dev at openjdk.java.net
> > Subject: Re: RFR(S): 8016476: PPC64 (part 1): reenable CORE build
> >
> > Note, only PART 1 is ready to go.
> >
> > I will leave the honor to push first changeset to you, Goetz :)
> >
> > Please, make sure you use correct changeset header/descriptor and you
> pass jcheck (no trailing spaces etc):
> >
> > 8016476: PPC64 (part 1): reenable CORE build
> > Summary: reenable CORE build on PPC64
> > Reviewed-by: dholmes, kvn, coleenp
> >
> >
> > About PART 2. Changes are good from reviewers point of view but we want
> to test closed bits on real PPC embedded
> > hardware because you touched #ifdefs around related code. I will let you
> know the results.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Vladimir
> >
> > On 6/14/13 10:58 AM, Albert Noll wrote:
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> yes, the jprt job for part 1 + part 2 has just finished successfully.
> >>
> >> Best,
> >> Albert
> >>
> >> On 14.06.2013 17:57, Vladimir Kozlov wrote:
> >>> This looks good. Albert tested it and I think it is ready to push.
> >>>
> >>> Thanks,
> >>> Vladimir
> >>>
> >>> On 6/14/13 12:49 AM, Lindenmaier, Goetz wrote:
> >>>> Hi,
> >>>>
> >>>> I updated the webrev accordingly.
> >>>> I'm checking for "ppc" and "64" now.
> >>>>
> >>>> Best regards,
> >>>>     Goetz.
> >>>>
> >>>> -----Original Message-----
> >>>> From: Vladimir Kozlov [mailto:vladimir.kozlov at oracle.com]
> >>>> Sent: Friday, June 14, 2013 8:37 AM
> >>>> To: David Holmes; Lindenmaier, Goetz
> >>>> Cc: ppc-aix-port-dev at openjdk.java.net; Chris Plummer;
> hotspot-dev at openjdk.java.net
> >>>> Subject: Re: RFR(S): 8016476: PPC64 (part 1): reenable CORE build
> >>>>
> >>>> Hi, Goetz
> >>>>
> >>>> I talked with David and we want you to add OS checks as
> generic_buildminimal1 does to avoid a confusion in future if
> >>>> someone (as I did) try to build CORE on other platforms. CORE was one
> of our supported builds and someone can think that
> >>>> this change will reenable it on all platforms which is not true.
> >>>>
> >>>> Thanks,
> >>>> Vladimir
> >>>>
> >>>> On 6/13/13 2:42 PM, Vladimir Kozlov wrote:
> >>>>> On 6/13/13 3:47 AM, David Holmes wrote:
> >>>>>> On 13/06/2013 7:53 PM, Lindenmaier, Goetz wrote:
> >>>>>>> Hi,
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> I fixed the jvmg target and prepared a webrev:
> >>>>>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~goetz/webrevs/8016476-CORE/
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Thanks for reviewing, Vladimir.
> >>>>>>> I need a second reviewer, please.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> So to clarify, this restores the old core targets but will only
> actually
> >>>>>> work on the new ports? If so do we want to validate that in
> >>>>>> generic_buildcore similar to the way we validate in
> generic_buildminimal1?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> It would be nice to have such validation but on other hand we don't
> have it for zero and shark, platforms which Oracle
> >>>>> does not support. And core will not be in our official builds or
> supported.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> thanks,
> >>>>> Vladimir
> >>>>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/ppc-aix-port-dev/attachments/20130614/c65cfd78/attachment.html