[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       openjdk-build-dev
Subject:    Visual Studio 2010
From:       denisl () openscg ! com (Lussier, Denis)
Date:       2010-05-20 9:44:28
Message-ID: AANLkTimh_qU285x-jeGnZUrad5KwcQ2oL0H3GBBrn7Lq () mail ! gmail ! com
[Download RAW message or body]

Seems to me that several Oracle employees already explicitely and/or
implicitely have apologized...  Is  there something more you feel they
personally owe u personally??  :-)


On 5/20/10, Raffaello Giulietti <raffaello.giulietti at gmail.com> wrote:
> Phil,
>
> On 2010-05-19 18:20, Phil Race wrote:
>>> Kelly, to your knowledge, has the transition to VS2010 been adopted even
>>> by the formal JDK7 Release Engineering team?
>>>
>>
>> Since you got so far as to find this doc perhaps you could actually read
>> it. It says :
>> *BEGIN WARNING*: At this time (Spring/Summer 2010) JDK 7 is starting a
>> transition to use the newest VS2010 Microsoft compilers. These build
>> instructions are updated to show where we are going. We have a QA
>> process to go through before official builds actually use VS2010. So for
>> now, official builds are still using VS2003. No other compilers are
>> known to build the entire JDK, including non-open portions. So for now
>> you should be able to build with either VS2003 or VS2010. We do not
>> guarantee that VS2008 will work, although there is sufficient makefile
>> support to make at least basic JDK builds plausible. Visual Studio 2010
>> Express compilers are likely to be able to build all the "open" sources,
>> with only small adjustments, but this has yet to be made to work. Also
>> we have not yet seen the 7.1 Windows SDK with the 64 bit compilers. *END
>> WARNING.*
>
>
> Of course, I actually read it. However, only two weeks ago the same doc
> reported about VS2008 with no special warning and *that* didn't work
> that well. So, I'm now much more cautious about the doc, despite its
> warnings. That's why I preferred to explicitly ask one more time rather
> than risking to burn my fingers again.
>
> But you did a good service to the community by quoting the warning once
> more.
>

[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]