Re: RFR: 8339783: Implementation of JEP 479: Remove the Windows 32-bit x86 Port

On Mon, 28 Oct 2024 18:09:41 GMT, Magnus Ihse Bursie wrote: > This is the implementation of [JEP 479: _Remove the Windows 32-bit x86 > Port_](https://openjdk.org/jeps/479). > > This is the summary of JEP 479: >> Remove the source code and build support for the Windows 32-bit x86 port. >> This

Re: RFR: 8339783: Implementation of JEP 479: Remove the Windows 32-bit x86 Port

On Mon, 28 Oct 2024 18:58:51 GMT, Aleksey Shipilev wrote: >> This is the implementation of [JEP 479: _Remove the Windows 32-bit x86 >> Port_](https://openjdk.org/jeps/479). >> >> This is the summary of JEP 479: >>> Remove the source code and build support for the Windows 32-bit x86 port. >>> T

Re: RFR: 8342662: C2: Add new phase for backend-specific lowering [v2]

On Mon, 28 Oct 2024 07:10:59 GMT, Jatin Bhateja wrote: > The application of lowering is very broad as it can help us perform arbitrary > transformation as well as take advantages of GVN @merykitty thanks for the examples. The idea of gradual IR lowering is not new in C2. There are precedents

Re: RFR: 8342662: C2: Add new phase for backend-specific lowering [v2]

On Sun, 27 Oct 2024 01:22:13 GMT, Jatin Bhateja wrote: >> I believe the matcher only needs the exact type of the node but not its >> inputs. E.g. it should not be an issue if we `AddVB` a `vector` and a >> `vector` into a `vector`. > > Generic vector operand resolution cocretizes generic operan

Re: RFR: 8342662: C2: Add new phase for backend-specific lowering [v2]

On Mon, 28 Oct 2024 22:46:55 GMT, Vladimir Ivanov wrote: >>> @jatin-bhateja @iwanowww The application of lowering is very broad as it >>> can help us perform arbitrary transformation as well as take advantages of >>> GVN in the ideal world: >>> >>> 1, Any expansion that can benefit from GVN ca

Integrated: 8342988: GHA: Build JTReg in single step

On Thu, 24 Oct 2024 18:58:41 GMT, Aleksey Shipilev wrote: > It is visible in current GHA runs that building jtreg sometimes break on > dependencies checkout, for example: > > > [build.sh][INFO] CYGWIN_OR_MSYS=0 > [build.sh][INFO] JAVA_HOME: /usr/lib/jvm/temurin-17-jdk-amd64 > [build.sh][INFO]

Re: RFR: 8342988: GHA: Build JTReg in single step [v2]

On Fri, 25 Oct 2024 17:12:52 GMT, Aleksey Shipilev wrote: >> It is visible in current GHA runs that building jtreg sometimes break on >> dependencies checkout, for example: >> >> >> [build.sh][INFO] CYGWIN_OR_MSYS=0 >> [build.sh][INFO] JAVA_HOME: /usr/lib/jvm/temurin-17-jdk-amd64 >> [build.sh]

Re: RFR: 8342662: C2: Add new phase for backend-specific lowering [v2]

On Sun, 27 Oct 2024 01:55:41 GMT, Jatin Bhateja wrote: >> Thanks for looking at the build changes, @magicus! I've pushed a commit that >> removes the extra newline in the makefiles and adds newlines to the ends of >> files that were missing them. >> >> Thanks for taking a look as well, @meryki

Re: RFR: 8342988: GHA: Build JTReg in single step

On Fri, 25 Oct 2024 17:09:26 GMT, Aleksey Shipilev wrote: > Reworked for artifacts. My limited tests passed. Let's see if full GHA test > passes with it. Passed. @magicus, take a look again? - PR Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/21692#issuecomment-2441237869

RE: hsdis build

>> Another issue on my SUSE Linux box was that libopcodes.a was not detected >> correctly when using a pre-built binutils dir. The folder lib was >> taking but this one was in lib64 . >If you believe this to be a bug, please open a JBS issue. At least the error output is bad , it says :

Re: RFR: 8338411: Implement JEP 486: Permanently Disable the Security Manager [v3]

On Fri, 25 Oct 2024 20:48:14 GMT, Sean Mullan wrote: >> src/java.base/share/classes/java/security/AccessControlContext.java line 32: >> >>> 30: >>> 31: /** >>> 32: * AccessControlContext was used with a SecurityManager for access >>> control decisions >> >> I'm not sure how you use this name

Re: RFR: 8311302: Implement JEP 493: Linking Run-Time Images without JMODs [v40]

On Fri, 25 Oct 2024 19:54:37 GMT, Mandy Chung wrote: >> Severin Gehwolf has updated the pull request incrementally with five >> additional commits since the last revision: >> >> - Better handle patched modules >> >>Also add a test which ensures that module patching (if present), will >

Re: RFR: 8338411: Implement JEP 486: Permanently Disable the Security Manager [v4]

On Mon, 28 Oct 2024 12:29:07 GMT, Sean Mullan wrote: >> This is the implementation of JEP 486: Permanently Disable the Security >> Manager. See [JEP 486](https://openjdk.org/jeps/486) for more details. The >> [CSR](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8338412) describes in detail the >> main ch

Re: RFR: 8338411: Implement JEP 486: Permanently Disable the Security Manager [v2]

On Fri, 18 Oct 2024 19:03:30 GMT, Sean Mullan wrote: >> This is the implementation of JEP 486: Permanently Disable the Security >> Manager. See [JEP 486](https://openjdk.org/jeps/486) for more details. The >> [CSR](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8338412) describes in detail the >> main ch

Re: RFR: 8338411: Implement JEP 486: Permanently Disable the Security Manager [v4]

On Mon, 28 Oct 2024 12:29:07 GMT, Sean Mullan wrote: >> This is the implementation of JEP 486: Permanently Disable the Security >> Manager. See [JEP 486](https://openjdk.org/jeps/486) for more details. The >> [CSR](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8338412) describes in detail the >> main ch

RFR: 8339783: Implementation of JEP 479: Remove the Windows 32-bit x86 Port

This is the implementation of [JEP 479: _Remove the Windows 32-bit x86 Port_](https://openjdk.org/jeps/479). This is the summary of JEP 479: > Remove the source code and build support for the Windows 32-bit x86 port. > This port was [deprecated for removal in JDK > 21](https://openjdk.org/jeps/

Re: RFR: 8339783: Implementation of JEP 479: Remove the Windows 32-bit x86 Port

On Mon, 28 Oct 2024 18:09:41 GMT, Magnus Ihse Bursie wrote: > This is the implementation of [JEP 479: _Remove the Windows 32-bit x86 > Port_](https://openjdk.org/jeps/479). > > This is the summary of JEP 479: >> Remove the source code and build support for the Windows 32-bit x86 port. >> This

Re: hsdis build

On 2024-10-28 16:48, Baesken, Matthias wrote: >> Another issue on my SUSE  Linux box was that libopcodes.a  was not detected correctly when using a pre-built   binutils dir. The folder  lib was taking but this one was in lib64 . >If you believe this to be a bug, please open a JBS issue. At l

Re: RFR: 8338411: Implement JEP 486: Permanently Disable the Security Manager [v3]

On Fri, 25 Oct 2024 18:09:46 GMT, Alexey Ivanov wrote: >> Sean Mullan has updated the pull request with a new target base due to a >> merge or a rebase. The pull request now contains 150 commits: >> >> - Merge remote-tracking branch 'jdk-sandbox/jep486' into JDK-8338411 >> - Merge >> - Updat

Re: RFR: 8338411: Implement JEP 486: Permanently Disable the Security Manager [v3]

On Fri, 25 Oct 2024 22:52:32 GMT, Phil Race wrote: >> @prrace Can you please advice on “Audit Core Reflection” category of tests. >> I'm not 100% sure if these tests need to be deleted or retained (May be some >> of them are required for code coverage purpose and/or testing code paths >> that

Re: RFR: 8338411: Implement JEP 486: Permanently Disable the Security Manager [v4]

On Mon, 28 Oct 2024 12:29:07 GMT, Sean Mullan wrote: >> This is the implementation of JEP 486: Permanently Disable the Security >> Manager. See [JEP 486](https://openjdk.org/jeps/486) for more details. The >> [CSR](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8338412) describes in detail the >> main ch

Re: RFR: 8338411: Implement JEP 486: Permanently Disable the Security Manager [v4]

On Mon, 28 Oct 2024 12:29:07 GMT, Sean Mullan wrote: >> This is the implementation of JEP 486: Permanently Disable the Security >> Manager. See [JEP 486](https://openjdk.org/jeps/486) for more details. The >> [CSR](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8338412) describes in detail the >> main ch

Re: RFR: 8338411: Implement JEP 486: Permanently Disable the Security Manager [v3]

On Fri, 25 Oct 2024 20:59:07 GMT, Roger Riggs wrote: >> Sean Mullan has updated the pull request with a new target base due to a >> merge or a rebase. The pull request now contains 150 commits: >> >> - Merge remote-tracking branch 'jdk-sandbox/jep486' into JDK-8338411 >> - Merge >> - Update

Re: RFR: 8342988: GHA: Build JTReg in single step [v2]

On Mon, 28 Oct 2024 13:36:54 GMT, Magnus Ihse Bursie wrote: >> Aleksey Shipilev has updated the pull request incrementally with one >> additional commit since the last revision: >> >> Rework for artifacts > > .github/actions/get-jtreg/action.yml line 59: > >> 57: - name: 'Build JTReg' >>

Re: RFR: 8338411: Implement JEP 486: Permanently Disable the Security Manager [v2]

On Tue, 22 Oct 2024 20:20:16 GMT, Roger Riggs wrote: >> Sean Mullan has updated the pull request with a new target base due to a >> merge or a rebase. The pull request now contains 97 commits: >> >> - Merge remote-tracking branch 'jdk-sandbox/jep486' into JDK-8338411 >> - Change apiNote to de

Re: RFR: 8338411: Implement JEP 486: Permanently Disable the Security Manager [v2]

On Fri, 25 Oct 2024 13:44:56 GMT, Sean Mullan wrote: >> src/java.base/share/classes/java/io/SerializablePermission.java line 40: >> >>> 38: * >>> 39: * @apiNote >>> 40: * This permission cannot be used for controlling access to resources >>> anymore >> >> Unnecessary "anymore" > > Removed t

Re: RFR: 8338411: Implement JEP 486: Permanently Disable the Security Manager [v2]

On Tue, 22 Oct 2024 20:55:30 GMT, Harshitha Onkar wrote: >> test/jdk/javax/swing/JEditorPane/8080972/TestJEditor.java line 49: >> >>> 47: SwingUtilities.invokeAndWait(TestJEditor::testJEditorPane); >>> 48: } >>> 49: >> >> Is there any need to catch the exception and rethrow Runtime

Re: RFR: 8338411: Implement JEP 486: Permanently Disable the Security Manager [v4]

On Tue, 22 Oct 2024 21:01:24 GMT, Harshitha Onkar wrote: >> test/jdk/javax/swing/UIDefaults/6795356/TableTest.java line 45: >> >>> (failed to retrieve contents of file, check the PR for context) >> I guess we can test this without SM since it tests SwingLazyValue? > > I believe I had removed thi

Re: RFR: 8338411: Implement JEP 486: Permanently Disable the Security Manager [v2]

On Wed, 23 Oct 2024 13:07:49 GMT, Daniel Fuchs wrote: >> test/jdk/java/net/httpclient/websocket/security/WSURLPermissionTest.java >> line 342: >> >>> 340: throws Exception >>> 341: { >>> 342: action.run(); >> >> testWithNoSecurityManager was previously a sanity check, the t

Re: RFR: 8342988: GHA: Build JTReg in single step [v2]

On Fri, 25 Oct 2024 17:12:52 GMT, Aleksey Shipilev wrote: >> It is visible in current GHA runs that building jtreg sometimes break on >> dependencies checkout, for example: >> >> >> [build.sh][INFO] CYGWIN_OR_MSYS=0 >> [build.sh][INFO] JAVA_HOME: /usr/lib/jvm/temurin-17-jdk-amd64 >> [build.sh]

Re: RFR: 8342988: GHA: Build JTReg in single step [v2]

On Mon, 28 Oct 2024 13:59:12 GMT, Aleksey Shipilev wrote: >> .github/actions/get-jtreg/action.yml line 59: >> >>> 57: - name: 'Build JTReg' >>> 58: run: | >>> 59: # If runner architecture is x64 set JAVA_HOME_17_X64 otherwise >>> set to JAVA_HOME_17_arm64 >> >> This logic see

Re: RFR: 8338411: Implement JEP 486: Permanently Disable the Security Manager [v3]

On Fri, 25 Oct 2024 23:45:26 GMT, Weijun Wang wrote: >> I'm not sure what would be a useful message. All the `SecurityManager` check >> methods throw a `SecurityException` with no message. We had to specify >> something here because `AccessControlException` doesn't have a no-args ctor. > > I se

Re: RFR: 8338411: Implement JEP 486: Permanently Disable the Security Manager [v2]

On Mon, 21 Oct 2024 22:57:10 GMT, Mandy Chung wrote: >> Sean Mullan has updated the pull request with a new target base due to a >> merge or a rebase. The pull request now contains 97 commits: >> >> - Merge remote-tracking branch 'jdk-sandbox/jep486' into JDK-8338411 >> - Change apiNote to de

Re: RFR: 8338411: Implement JEP 486: Permanently Disable the Security Manager [v3]

On Thu, 24 Oct 2024 15:04:08 GMT, Alexey Ivanov wrote: >> Sean Mullan has updated the pull request with a new target base due to a >> merge or a rebase. The pull request now contains 150 commits: >> >> - Merge remote-tracking branch 'jdk-sandbox/jep486' into JDK-8338411 >> - Merge >> - Updat

Re: RFR: 8311302: Implement JEP 493: Linking Run-Time Images without JMODs [v40]

On Fri, 25 Oct 2024 16:29:52 GMT, Severin Gehwolf wrote: >> Please review this patch which adds a jlink mode to the JDK which doesn't >> need the packaged modules being present. A.k.a run-time image based jlink. >> Fundamentally this patch adds an option to use `jlink` even though your JDK >>

Re: RFR: 8338411: Implement JEP 486: Permanently Disable the Security Manager [v4]

On Fri, 25 Oct 2024 21:02:37 GMT, Sean Mullan wrote: >> src/java.base/share/classes/java/security/Policy.java line 90: >> >>> 88: * and subject to removal in a future release. Consequently, this >>> class >>> 89: * is also deprecated and subject to removal. There is no >>> replac

Re: RFR: 8342988: GHA: Build JTReg in single step [v2]

On Fri, 25 Oct 2024 17:12:52 GMT, Aleksey Shipilev wrote: >> It is visible in current GHA runs that building jtreg sometimes break on >> dependencies checkout, for example: >> >> >> [build.sh][INFO] CYGWIN_OR_MSYS=0 >> [build.sh][INFO] JAVA_HOME: /usr/lib/jvm/temurin-17-jdk-amd64 >> [build.sh]

Re: hsdis build

On 2024-10-28 13:39, Baesken, Matthias wrote: Hello, I wanted to try the hsdis build  (on Linux x86_64) . After no success my system binutils, I  downloaded the sources and used these configure options :    --with-hsdis=binutils   --with-binutils-src=/mydir/binutils/binutils-2.42.90 The c

Re: RFR: 8338411: Implement JEP 486: Permanently Disable the Security Manager [v4]

On Tue, 15 Oct 2024 22:09:59 GMT, Sean Mullan wrote: >> src/java.base/share/classes/java/net/URLClassLoader.java line 667: >> >>> 665: * @param codesource the codesource >>> 666: * @throwsNullPointerException if {@code codesource} is {@code >>> null}. >>> 667: * @return the p

Re: ubsan minimal runtime option and OpenJDK

On 2024-10-09 09:39, Baesken, Matthias wrote: Hi, I wanted to try the "minimal runtime" option of ubsan because it might be faster and has other benefits. See https://clang.llvm.org/docs/UndefinedBehaviorSanitizer.html#minimal-runtime

Re: RFR: 8338411: Implement JEP 486: Permanently Disable the Security Manager [v3]

On Fri, 25 Oct 2024 18:52:24 GMT, Alexey Ivanov wrote: >> @aivanov-jdk >> On macOS, popup is shifted up and does not cover the taskbar even without >> SM. >> >>> The updated test bug6694823.java works correctly on Windows and displays >>> its popup over the Windows taskbar — it is expected.

Re: RFR: 8338411: Implement JEP 486: Permanently Disable the Security Manager [v3]

On Fri, 25 Oct 2024 20:34:31 GMT, Sean Mullan wrote: >> src/java.base/share/classes/java/security/Security.java line 489: >> >>> 487: >>> 488: /** >>> 489: * Adds a provider to the next position available.. >> >> Two periods at the end. > > Will fix. Fixed in https://github.com/open

Re: RFR: 8338411: Implement JEP 486: Permanently Disable the Security Manager [v3]

On Thu, 24 Oct 2024 15:57:25 GMT, Alexey Ivanov wrote: >> Sean Mullan has updated the pull request with a new target base due to a >> merge or a rebase. The pull request now contains 150 commits: >> >> - Merge remote-tracking branch 'jdk-sandbox/jep486' into JDK-8338411 >> - Merge >> - Updat

Re: RFR: 8338411: Implement JEP 486: Permanently Disable the Security Manager [v3]

On Fri, 25 Oct 2024 23:20:02 GMT, Alexander Zuev wrote: >> Right the JBS is about SM & SecurityException, but the test was repurposed >> to check if InvalidMidiDataException is thrown and to test this case for >> code coverage (when it was initially reviewed). >> I can update the test summary

Re: RFR: 8338411: Implement JEP 486: Permanently Disable the Security Manager [v3]

On Thu, 24 Oct 2024 15:01:44 GMT, Alexey Ivanov wrote: >> Sean Mullan has updated the pull request with a new target base due to a >> merge or a rebase. The pull request now contains 150 commits: >> >> - Merge remote-tracking branch 'jdk-sandbox/jep486' into JDK-8338411 >> - Merge >> - Updat

Re: RFR: 8338411: Implement JEP 486: Permanently Disable the Security Manager [v3]

On Fri, 25 Oct 2024 23:58:33 GMT, Weijun Wang wrote: >>> The class spec still mentions "permissions which are retrieved by the >>> system policy by default". Shall we remove it? >> >> Yes I think we can remove that text. >> >>> Also, getPermissions always returns an empty Permissions object,

Re: RFR: 8338411: Implement JEP 486: Permanently Disable the Security Manager [v3]

On Fri, 25 Oct 2024 20:31:40 GMT, Harshitha Onkar wrote: >> test/jdk/javax/swing/JPopupMenu/6691503/bug6691503.java line 1: >> >>> 1: /* >> >> I think we can delete this test. It verifies that popup menus are displayed >> in a windows `isAlwaysOnTop() == true` in stand-alone apps whereas for

RE: ubsan minimal runtime option and OpenJDK

>I'd say it looks like you need to link with another library? Where should the >__ubsan_handle_type_mismatch_minimal symbol come from? I don’t really know. Was wondering if anyone had already worked with this more. >>On the other hand, I tried the minimal runtime option with some standalone

Re: RFR: 8338411: Implement JEP 486: Permanently Disable the Security Manager [v4]

> This is the implementation of JEP 486: Permanently Disable the Security > Manager. See [JEP 486](https://openjdk.org/jeps/486) for more details. The > [CSR](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8338412) describes in detail the > main changes in the JEP and also includes an apidiff of the specif

hsdis build

Hello, I wanted to try the hsdis build (on Linux x86_64) . After no success my system binutils, I downloaded the sources and used these configure options : --with-hsdis=binutils --with-binutils-src=/mydir/binutils/binutils-2.42.90 The configure part does not complain, and seems the binuti

Re: RFR: 8338411: Implement JEP 486: Permanently Disable the Security Manager [v3]

On Thu, 24 Oct 2024 19:33:23 GMT, Roger Riggs wrote: >> Sean Mullan has updated the pull request with a new target base due to a >> merge or a rebase. The pull request now contains 150 commits: >> >> - Merge remote-tracking branch 'jdk-sandbox/jep486' into JDK-8338411 >> - Merge >> - Update

Re: RFR: 8339783: Implementation of JEP 479: Remove the Windows 32-bit x86 Port

On Mon, 28 Oct 2024 18:15:38 GMT, Magnus Ihse Bursie wrote: >> This is the implementation of [JEP 479: _Remove the Windows 32-bit x86 >> Port_](https://openjdk.org/jeps/479). >> >> This is the summary of JEP 479: >>> Remove the source code and build support for the Windows 32-bit x86 port. >>>

Re: RFR: 8338411: Implement JEP 486: Permanently Disable the Security Manager [v4]

On Mon, 28 Oct 2024 12:29:07 GMT, Sean Mullan wrote: >> This is the implementation of JEP 486: Permanently Disable the Security >> Manager. See [JEP 486](https://openjdk.org/jeps/486) for more details. The >> [CSR](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8338412) describes in detail the >> main ch

Re: RFR: 8338411: Implement JEP 486: Permanently Disable the Security Manager [v4]

On Mon, 28 Oct 2024 12:29:07 GMT, Sean Mullan wrote: >> This is the implementation of JEP 486: Permanently Disable the Security >> Manager. See [JEP 486](https://openjdk.org/jeps/486) for more details. The >> [CSR](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8338412) describes in detail the >> main ch

Re: RFR: 8338411: Implement JEP 486: Permanently Disable the Security Manager [v4]

On Mon, 28 Oct 2024 12:29:07 GMT, Sean Mullan wrote: >> This is the implementation of JEP 486: Permanently Disable the Security >> Manager. See [JEP 486](https://openjdk.org/jeps/486) for more details. The >> [CSR](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8338412) describes in detail the >> main ch

Re: RFR: 8342662: C2: Add new phase for backend-specific lowering [v2]

On Mon, 28 Oct 2024 03:54:06 GMT, Jasmine Karthikeyan wrote: >> @jaskarth thanks for exploring platform-specific lowering! >> >> I briefly looked through the changes, but I didn't get a good understanding >> of its design goals. It's hard to see what use cases it is targeted for when >> only

Re: RFR: 8339783: Implementation of JEP 479: Remove the Windows 32-bit x86 Port

On Mon, 28 Oct 2024 18:09:41 GMT, Magnus Ihse Bursie wrote: > This is the implementation of [JEP 479: _Remove the Windows 32-bit x86 > Port_](https://openjdk.org/jeps/479). > > This is the summary of JEP 479: >> Remove the source code and build support for the Windows 32-bit x86 port. >> This

Re: Integrated: 8330182: Start of release updates for JDK 24

On Mon, 15 Apr 2024 19:57:49 GMT, Iris Clark wrote: > The copyright year was not updated in all files *14.java. I assume that's > intentional. I'll run my copyright update script before pushing. > I've also Reviewed the associated CSRs. Thanks. > make/conf/version-numbers.conf line 36: > >>

Re: Integrated: 8330182: Start of release updates for JDK 24

On Tue, 23 Apr 2024 07:03:45 GMT, David Holmes wrote: > There are further updates to this test in the pipeline (new deprecated flags > in 23) so you will need to keep updating to reflect that. Thanks @dholmes-ora ; acknowledged. - PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pul

Integrated: 8330182: Start of release updates for JDK 24

On Mon, 15 Apr 2024 19:01:08 GMT, Joe Darcy wrote: > Get JDK 24 underway. This pull request has now been integrated. Changeset: 75dc2f85 Author:Joe Darcy Committer: Jesper Wilhelmsson URL: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/commit/75dc2f8518d0adea30f7065d6732b807c0220756 Stats: 2083 l

Re: Integrated: 8330182: Start of release updates for JDK 24

On Thu, 30 May 2024 18:39:19 GMT, Chen Liang wrote: >> Get JDK 24 underway. > > src/jdk.compiler/share/data/symbols/jdk.incubator.foreign-N.sym.txt line 1: > >> 1: # > > Just curious, does CreateSymbols not track module migrations, now that > jdk.incubator.foreign is completely merged into jav

Re: Integrated: 8330182: Start of release updates for JDK 24

On Tue, 16 Apr 2024 21:21:43 GMT, Chen Liang wrote: >> Get JDK 24 underway. > > src/java.base/share/classes/java/lang/classfile/ClassFile.java line 1481: > >> 1479: int JAVA_23_VERSION = 67; >> 1480: >> 1481: /** 68 */ > > We need `@since 24` here. Ah, good catch; looks like I was tre

Re: Integrated: 8330182: Start of release updates for JDK 24

On Mon, 15 Apr 2024 19:01:08 GMT, Joe Darcy wrote: > Get JDK 24 underway. src/java.base/share/classes/java/lang/classfile/ClassFile.java line 1481: > 1479: int JAVA_23_VERSION = 67; > 1480: > 1481: /** 68 */ We need `@since 24` here. src/jdk.compiler/share/data/symbols/jdk.incubator.

Re: Integrated: 8330182: Start of release updates for JDK 24

On Mon, 15 Apr 2024 19:01:08 GMT, Joe Darcy wrote: > Get JDK 24 underway. This initial version of the PR intentionally excludes the creation of the new symbol files so that the fundamental code aspects of the update are easier to see. - PR Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pul

Integrated: 8330182: Start of release updates for JDK 24

Get JDK 24 underway. - Commit messages: - Update copyright. - Updated problem list after bug fix. - Merge branch 'master' into JDK-8330188 - Merge branch 'master' into JDK-8330188 - Temporarily problem list java.lang.instrument tests until jar generation is fixed. - Merge branc

Re: Integrated: 8330182: Start of release updates for JDK 24

On Mon, 15 Apr 2024 19:01:08 GMT, Joe Darcy wrote: > Get JDK 24 underway. LGTM Thanks test/hotspot/jtreg/runtime/CommandLine/VMDeprecatedOptions.java line 1: > 1: /* There are further updates to this test in the pipeline (new deprecated flags in 23) so you will need to keep updating to refl

Re: Integrated: 8330182: Start of release updates for JDK 24

On Mon, 15 Apr 2024 19:01:08 GMT, Joe Darcy wrote: > Get JDK 24 underway. lgtm - Marked as reviewed by vromero (Reviewer). PR Review: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/18787#pullrequestreview-2004323374

Re: Integrated: 8330182: Start of release updates for JDK 24

On Mon, 15 Apr 2024 19:01:08 GMT, Joe Darcy wrote: > Get JDK 24 underway. The copyright year was not updated in all files *14.java. I assume that's intentional. I've also Reviewed the associated CSRs. Marked as reviewed by iris (Reviewer). Marked as reviewed by iris (Reviewer). Still loo

Re: Integrated: 8330182: Start of release updates for JDK 24

On Mon, 15 Apr 2024 19:01:08 GMT, Joe Darcy wrote: > Get JDK 24 underway. ClassFile changes are OK. - Marked as reviewed by asotona (Reviewer). PR Review: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/18787#pullrequestreview-2005504192

Re: RFR: 8338411: Implement JEP 486: Permanently Disable the Security Manager [v3]

On Fri, 25 Oct 2024 20:13:52 GMT, Roger Riggs wrote: >> Sean Mullan has updated the pull request with a new target base due to a >> merge or a rebase. The pull request now contains 150 commits: >> >> - Merge remote-tracking branch 'jdk-sandbox/jep486' into JDK-8338411 >> - Merge >> - Update