On Mon, 4 Nov 2024 09:45:05 GMT, Thomas Stuefe wrote:
>>> Can we get rid of `JNICALL` too, please?
>>>
>>> Or would that change be too big?
>>
>> There's >1000 in java.base, lots more elsewhere, so it would be a lot of
>> files and would hide the core changes. So maybe for a follow-up PR that
On Sat, 2 Nov 2024 07:51:20 GMT, Alexander Zuev wrote:
>> make/modules/jdk.accessibility/Lib.gmk line 57:
>>
>>> 55: TARGETS += $(BUILD_LIBJAVAACCESSBRIDGE)
>>> 56:
>>> 57:
>>> ##
>>
>> Most of the desktop related
On Sun, 3 Nov 2024 05:06:04 GMT, Jiangli Zhou wrote:
> Please fix the debugging symbol issue in your PR.
That is a request with most likely a whole other magnitude of difficulty. Our
handling of debug symbols and all its intricacies is tightly coupled to the
existing dynamic linking process. I
On Sun, 3 Nov 2024 20:23:32 GMT, Jiangli Zhou wrote:
>> Magnus Ihse Bursie has updated the pull request with a new target base due
>> to a merge or a rebase. The pull request now contains 10 commits:
>>
>> - Merge branch 'master' into static-jdk-image
>> - Fix bug in filtering out -Wl,--exclu
> 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://openjd
On Wed, 30 Oct 2024 22:44:45 GMT, Mandy Chung wrote:
>> Severin Gehwolf has updated the pull request incrementally with 20
>> additional commits since the last revision:
>>
>> - Some test fixes
>> - Remove period in jlink.properties
>> - Revert changes to ResourcePoolEntry
>> - Fix comment
> 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://openjd
On Mon, 4 Nov 2024 17:16:49 GMT, Vladimir Kozlov wrote:
>>> > With that said, it is sure as heck confusing! Which also apparently
>>> > Microsoft acknowledges by phasing in the term "Windows API". So I agree
>>> > that we should try to rename everything currently called "win32" into
>>> > "win
On Fri, 1 Nov 2024 18:11:13 GMT, Vladimir Kozlov wrote:
>> Magnus Ihse Bursie has updated the pull request incrementally with two
>> additional commits since the last revision:
>>
>> - Remove superfluous check for 64-bit on Windows in
>> MacroAssembler::call_clobbered_xmm_registers
>> - Remo
On Mon, 4 Nov 2024 17:31:00 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.
>>>
On Thu, 31 Oct 2024 21:59:27 GMT, Mandy Chung wrote:
> > OK. It's currently part of the JEP, though which should explain what it
> > does. Open for suggestions, though. I've taken inspiration from JVM
> > features which use a similar `+/-` model.
>
> I think it'd better to make this message hu
On Sun, 3 Nov 2024 03:17:14 GMT, Archie Cobbs wrote:
>> Please review this patch which removes unnecessary `@SuppressWarnings`
>> annotations and `-Xlint:-foo` options.
>
> Archie Cobbs has updated the pull request with a new target base due to a
> merge or a rebase. The incremental webrev excl
On Wed, 30 Oct 2024 22:41:49 GMT, Mandy Chung wrote:
>> Severin Gehwolf has updated the pull request incrementally with 20
>> additional commits since the last revision:
>>
>> - Some test fixes
>> - Remove period in jlink.properties
>> - Revert changes to ResourcePoolEntry
>> - Fix comment
On Mon, 4 Nov 2024 17:01:33 GMT, Vladimir Kozlov wrote:
> > With that said, it is sure as heck confusing! Which also apparently
> > Microsoft acknowledges by phasing in the term "Windows API". So I agree
> > that we should try to rename everything currently called "win32" into
> > "windows". B
> 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://openjd
On Mon, 4 Nov 2024 17:08:40 GMT, Magnus Ihse Bursie wrote:
>>> With that said, it is sure as heck confusing! Which also apparently
>>> Microsoft acknowledges by phasing in the term "Windows API". So I agree
>>> that we should try to rename everything currently called "win32" into
>>> "windows"
On Mon, 4 Nov 2024 16:04:12 GMT, Magnus Ihse Bursie wrote:
> With that said, it is sure as heck confusing! Which also apparently Microsoft
> acknowledges by phasing in the term "Windows API". So I agree that we should
> try to rename everything currently called "win32" into "windows". But I'd
> 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://openjd
On Mon, 4 Nov 2024 09:58:49 GMT, Kim Barrett wrote:
>> There is a difference between "working" and not causing a build failure. I
>> suspect none of that code is actually needed these days, but I'm not sure.
>> As deleting the entire section goes beyond deleting 32-bit code, I would
>> expect
On Mon, 4 Nov 2024 09:45:05 GMT, Thomas Stuefe wrote:
> Can we get rid of `JNICALL` too, please?
That we can never do, since it is part of jni.h which are imported in likely
millions of JNI projects. But we can replace it with an empty define. And we
can document it as not needed anymore, and
On Wed, 30 Oct 2024 23:23:11 GMT, Mandy Chung wrote:
>> Severin Gehwolf has updated the pull request incrementally with 20
>> additional commits since the last revision:
>>
>> - Some test fixes
>> - Remove period in jlink.properties
>> - Revert changes to ResourcePoolEntry
>> - Fix comment
On Thu, 31 Oct 2024 17:53:01 GMT, Mandy Chung wrote:
>> Severin Gehwolf has updated the pull request with a new target base due to a
>> merge or a rebase. The pull request now contains 172 commits:
>>
>> - Merge branch 'master' into jdk-8311302-jmodless-link
>> - Some test fixes
>> - Remove
On Mon, 4 Nov 2024 02:34:13 GMT, David Holmes wrote:
>> Magnus Ihse Bursie has updated the pull request incrementally with two
>> additional commits since the last revision:
>>
>> - Remove superfluous check for 64-bit on Windows in
>> MacroAssembler::call_clobbered_xmm_registers
>> - Remove
On Mon, 4 Nov 2024 09:00:59 GMT, Kim Barrett wrote:
>> src/hotspot/share/adlc/adlc.hpp line 43:
>>
>>> 41:
>>> 42: /* Make sure that we have the intptr_t and uintptr_t definitions */
>>> 43: #ifdef _WIN32
>>
>> As this is a synonym for `_WINDOWS` it is not obvious this deletion is
>> correct.
On Tue, 22 Oct 2024 09:28:36 GMT, Hamlin Li wrote:
>> Hi,
>> Can you help to review the patch? Previously it's
>> https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/pull/18605.
>> This pr is based on https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/pull/20781.
>>
>> Thanks!
>>
>> ## Test
>> ### tests:
>> * test/jdk/jdk/incubator/v
On Fri, 1 Nov 2024 11:01:24 GMT, Andrew Haley wrote:
> Here are my results, Apple M1. Pretty similar to what we've seen, but no SVE.
>
> Looks good.
Thank you so much for testing!
-
PR Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/21502#issuecomment-2454181484
On Fri, 1 Nov 2024 16:04:55 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.
>>>
On Mon, 14 Oct 2024 14:57:46 GMT, Hamlin Li wrote:
> Hi,
> Can you help to review the patch? Previously it's
> https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/pull/18605.
> This pr is based on https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/pull/20781.
>
> Thanks!
>
> ## Test
> ### tests:
> * test/jdk/jdk/incubator/vector/
> *
On Mon, 4 Nov 2024 09:21:52 GMT, Thomas Stuefe wrote:
> Can we get rid of `JNICALL` too, please?
>
> Or would that change be too big?
There's >1000 in java.base, lots more elsewhere, so it would be a lot of files
and would hide the core changes. So maybe for a follow-up PR that does the one
t
On Mon, 4 Nov 2024 19:05:05 GMT, Jiangli Zhou wrote:
> I notice incremental build with your current PR doesn't update
> `static-jdk/bin/java` properly. This should be fixed as well.
This I fully agree with; it cannot wait for a follow-up PR. I'll look into it
as soon as I have gotten back to a
On Thu, 31 Oct 2024 18:37:50 GMT, Mandy Chung wrote:
>> Severin Gehwolf has updated the pull request with a new target base due to a
>> merge or a rebase. The pull request now contains 172 commits:
>>
>> - Merge branch 'master' into jdk-8311302-jmodless-link
>> - Some test fixes
>> - Remove
On Thu, 31 Oct 2024 18:20:36 GMT, Mandy Chung wrote:
>> Severin Gehwolf has updated the pull request with a new target base due to a
>> merge or a rebase. The pull request now contains 172 commits:
>>
>> - Merge branch 'master' into jdk-8311302-jmodless-link
>> - Some test fixes
>> - Remove
> 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://openjd
> 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://openjd
> 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://openjd
On Mon, 4 Nov 2024 20:29:23 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.
>>>
On Sun, 3 Nov 2024 05:06:04 GMT, Jiangli Zhou wrote:
> There is no `static-jdk/bin/java.debuginfo`. I do see there's a
> `./support/static-native/launcher/java.debuginfo`.
Ah, I missed that part. So it's just about copying it to the right place? Fine,
that is trivial to add. Did you verify tha
On Mon, 4 Nov 2024 21:24:54 GMT, Magnus Ihse Bursie wrote:
> > There is no `static-jdk/bin/java.debuginfo`. I do see there's a
> > `./support/static-native/launcher/java.debuginfo`.
>
> Ah, I missed that part. So it's just about copying it to the right place?
> Fine, that is trivial to add. Di
> 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://openjd
On Fri, 1 Nov 2024 16:25:59 GMT, Magnus Ihse Bursie wrote:
>> As a prerequisite for Hermetic Java, we need a statically linked `java`
>> launcher. It should behave like the normal, dynamically linked `java`
>> launcher, except that all JDK native libraries should be statically, not
>> dynamica
On Mon, 4 Nov 2024 21:29:51 GMT, Jiangli Zhou wrote:
>>> I notice incremental build with your current PR doesn't update
>>> `static-jdk/bin/java` properly. This should be fixed as well.
>>
>> This I fully agree with; it cannot wait for a follow-up PR. I'll look into
>> it as soon as I have got
On Mon, 4 Nov 2024 21:12:31 GMT, Magnus Ihse Bursie wrote:
> I can confirm that with your patch, and clang, and a complete wipe + rebuild,
> the .java file loading works. I'm currently testing with gcc as well.
Good.
I tested using gcc.
-
PR Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/
> As a prerequisite for Hermetic Java, we need a statically linked `java`
> launcher. It should behave like the normal, dynamically linked `java`
> launcher, except that all JDK native libraries should be statically, not
> dynamically, linked.
>
> This patch is the first step towards this goal.
> 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://openjd
> 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://openjd
On Fri, 1 Nov 2024 16:25:59 GMT, Magnus Ihse Bursie wrote:
>> As a prerequisite for Hermetic Java, we need a statically linked `java`
>> launcher. It should behave like the normal, dynamically linked `java`
>> launcher, except that all JDK native libraries should be statically, not
>> dynamica
> 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://openjd
On Sun, 3 Nov 2024 20:23:32 GMT, Jiangli Zhou wrote:
>> Magnus Ihse Bursie has updated the pull request with a new target base due
>> to a merge or a rebase. The pull request now contains 10 commits:
>>
>> - Merge branch 'master' into static-jdk-image
>> - Fix bug in filtering out -Wl,--exclu
> 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://openjd
On Mon, 4 Nov 2024 19:27:59 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 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://openjd
On Mon, 4 Nov 2024 09:11:16 GMT, David Holmes wrote:
>> The deletion is apparently working, else we'd be getting build failures. So
>> while there are some potential issues and opportunities for further cleanup
>> in
>> this file, I think they ought to be addressed separately from this PR. See
>
On Fri, 1 Nov 2024 16:04:55 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.
>>>
On Mon, 4 Nov 2024 09:28:50 GMT, Alan Bateman wrote:
> > Can we get rid of `JNICALL` too, please?
> > Or would that change be too big?
>
> There's >1000 in java.base, lots more elsewhere, so it would be a lot of
> files and would hide the core changes. So maybe for a follow-up PR that does
> t
On Thu, 31 Oct 2024 10:52:22 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
>>
55 matches
Mail list logo
