On Fri, 29 Jul 2022 18:02:46 GMT, Harold Seigel wrote:
> Please review this change to fix JDK-8291360. This fix adds entry points
> getClassFileVersion() and getClassAccessFlagsRaw() to class java.lang.Class.
> The new entry points return the current class's class file version and its
> raw
On Tue, 17 Oct 2023 11:43:59 GMT, Andrew Haley wrote:
>> A bug in GCC causes shared libraries linked with -ffast-math to disable
>> denormal arithmetic. This breaks Java's floating-point semantics.
>>
>> The bug is https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55522
>>
>> One solution is to sav
Clarify the intention of tier 1 tests. I'll reflow the paragraph and regenerate
the HTML file once the wording is agreed upon.
-
Commit messages:
- JDK-8296240: Augment discussion of test tiers in doc/testing.md
Changes: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/16384/files
Webrev: https:/
> Clarify the intention of tier 1 tests. I'll reflow the paragraph and
> regenerate the HTML file once the wording is agreed upon.
Joe Darcy has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional commit
since the last revision:
Implement review feedback.
---
On Thu, 26 Oct 2023 19:25:21 GMT, Jonathan Gibbons wrote:
>> Joe Darcy has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional
>> commit since the last revision:
>>
>> Implement review feedback.
>
> doc/testing.md line 138:
>
>> 136: A brie
On Fri, 27 Oct 2023 00:51:26 GMT, Leonid Mesnik wrote:
> It is not clear why the time limit is 10 seconds. There are hundreds of tests
> in current tier1 that currently take longer than 10 seconds.
I haven't looked at the exact running time recently, but I'd expect there are
thousands of tests
On Fri, 27 Oct 2023 10:05:39 GMT, Daniel Fuchs wrote:
>> Joe Darcy has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional
>> commit since the last revision:
>>
>> Implement review feedback.
>
> doc/testing.md line 141:
>
>> 139: Roughly spe
On Fri, 27 Oct 2023 06:55:43 GMT, Alan Bateman wrote:
> The jtreg generated timeStats.txt is useful to see the distribution. For the
> dev guide, I think it's good to say that tests that run in tier1 must run
> quickly but I don't think we can suggest 10s as a limit. It might be okay to
> say
> Clarify the intention of tier 1 tests. I'll reflow the paragraph and
> regenerate the HTML file once the wording is agreed upon.
Joe Darcy has updated the pull request incrementally with two additional
commits since the last revision:
- Update wording on test running ti
On Sun, 29 Oct 2023 18:19:12 GMT, Alan Bateman wrote:
> > So in terms of a sentence or two of guidance, I think "aim for 10 seconds
> > or less almost all of the time for a tier 1 test" is reasonable in this
> > context.
>
> Yes, I think making it an aspiration would be better.
>
> In passing
> Clarify the intention of tier 1 tests. I'll reflow the paragraph and
> regenerate the HTML file once the wording is agreed upon.
Joe Darcy has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional commit
since the last revision:
Implement review feedback.
---
> Clarify the intention of tier 1 tests. I'll reflow the paragraph and
> regenerate the HTML file once the wording is agreed upon.
Joe Darcy has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional commit
since the last revision:
Initial check-in of update
> Clarify the intention of tier 1 tests. I'll reflow the paragraph and
> regenerate the HTML file once the wording is agreed upon.
Joe Darcy has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional commit
since the last revision:
Update wording.
-
Changes:
-
On Tue, 31 Oct 2023 07:05:47 GMT, Alan Bateman wrote:
>> Joe Darcy has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional
>> commit since the last revision:
>>
>> Initial check-in of updated HTML file.
>
> doc/testing.md line 147:
>
>> 145: m
> Clarify the intention of tier 1 tests. I'll reflow the paragraph and
> regenerate the HTML file once the wording is agreed upon.
Joe Darcy has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional commit
since the last revision:
Reflow paragraph.
-
Chang
On Thu, 26 Oct 2023 19:04:16 GMT, Joe Darcy wrote:
> Clarify the intention of tier 1 tests. I'll reflow the paragraph and
> regenerate the HTML file once the wording is agreed upon.
This pull request has now been integrated.
Changeset: c788160f
Author: Joe Darcy
URL:
On Thu, 9 Nov 2023 10:55:06 GMT, Jan Lahoda wrote:
>> Consider a simple module, like:
>>
>> module test {}
>>
>>
>> And compile it with JDK 22 and JDK 21 using:
>> javac --release 21
>>
>> The results of the compilations will differ: when compiling with JDK 21, the
>> mandated java.base depe
Time to start making preparations for JDK 23.
-
Commit messages:
- Add symbol files for JDK 22 build 25.
- Merge branch 'master' into JDK-8319413
- Merge branch 'master' into JDK-8319413
- Adjust expected release date.
- Fix omission in Classfile.java
- JDK-8319413: Start of rel
On Fri, 3 Nov 2023 23:52:45 GMT, Chen Liang wrote:
>> Time to start making preparations for JDK 23.
>
> src/java.base/share/classes/jdk/internal/classfile/Classfile.java line 1:
>
>> 1: /*
>
> `latestMajorVersion` below should be updated to return `JAVA_23_VERSION` as
> well.
Good catch; fixe
On Fri, 3 Nov 2023 23:42:03 GMT, Joe Darcy wrote:
> Time to start making preparations for JDK 23.
Nothing exception in this batch of start-of-release updates. Clean local
testing results on tier 1.
The symbol files correspond to JDK 22 build 25 and will be updated with
subsequent builds
> Time to start making preparations for JDK 23.
Joe Darcy has updated the pull request with a new target base due to a merge or
a rebase. The pull request now contains seven commits:
- Merge branch 'master' into JDK-8319413
- Add symbol files for JDK 22 build 25.
- Merge branch
> Time to start making preparations for JDK 23.
Joe Darcy has updated the pull request with a new target base due to a merge or
a rebase. The pull request now contains eight commits:
- Merge branch 'master' into JDK-8319413
- Merge branch 'master' into JDK-8319413
- A
> Time to start making preparations for JDK 23.
Joe Darcy has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional commit
since the last revision:
Update symbol files to JDK 22 b26.
-
Changes:
- all: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/16505/files
- new: ht
On Fri, 1 Dec 2023 08:54:06 GMT, Alan Bateman wrote:
> Looks good. I assume you'll bump the copyright header on the files that need
> it before integration, e.g. JavacTestingAbstractProcessor.
Right; I run a script to update the years of modified files.
-
PR Comment: https://git.o
On Sun, 3 Dec 2023 21:31:42 GMT, Jan Lahoda wrote:
> As part of:
> https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/pull/16505
>
> there are new symbol files for JDK 22, and @jddarcy noted the content looks
> weird.
>
> I was investigating, and found a few problems, some introduced by
> https://github.com/open
> Time to start making preparations for JDK 23.
Joe Darcy has updated the pull request with a new target base due to a merge or
a rebase. The pull request now contains 15 commits:
- Merge branch 'master' into JDK-8319413
- Add symbol files.
- Merge branch 'master' in
> Time to start making preparations for JDK 23.
Joe Darcy has updated the pull request with a new target base due to a merge or
a rebase. The pull request now contains 18 commits:
- Regenerate JDK 22 symbol files.
- Merge branch 'master' into JDK-8319413
- Merge branch
> Time to start making preparations for JDK 23.
Joe Darcy has updated the pull request with a new target base due to a merge or
a rebase. The pull request now contains 21 commits:
- Merge branch 'master' into JDK-8319413
- Merge branch 'master' into JDK-8319413
- Mer
> Time to start making preparations for JDK 23.
Joe Darcy has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional commit
since the last revision:
Update copyright year.
-
Changes:
- all: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/16505/files
- new: https://git.openjdk.org/
On Fri, 3 Nov 2023 23:42:03 GMT, Joe Darcy wrote:
> Time to start making preparations for JDK 23.
This pull request has now been integrated.
Changeset: 519ecd35
Author: Joe Darcy
Committer: Jesper Wilhelmsson
URL:
https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/com
The restricted javac warning is disabled for java.base, but could be enabled by
suppressing the warning in a handful of files.
-
Commit messages:
- JDK-8325148: Enable restricted javac warning in java.base
Changes: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/17677/files
Webrev: https://webre
> The restricted javac warning is disabled for java.base, but could be enabled
> by suppressing the warning in a handful of files.
Joe Darcy has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional commit
since the last revision:
Add comment highlighting restricted method
On Thu, 1 Feb 2024 22:01:49 GMT, Jorn Vernee wrote:
> This looks good to me. It will be easier to find where we are doing
> restricted operations like this.
Right; follows the recommended approach of minimizing the scope of the
SuppressWarnings annotations too. Thanks.
-
PR Comme
> The restricted javac warning is disabled for java.base, but could be enabled
> by suppressing the warning in a handful of files.
Joe Darcy has updated the pull request with a new target base due to a merge or
a rebase. The incremental webrev excludes the unrelated changes brought in b
On Thu, 1 Feb 2024 21:10:48 GMT, Joe Darcy wrote:
> The restricted javac warning is disabled for java.base, but could be enabled
> by suppressing the warning in a handful of files.
This pull request has now been integrated.
Changeset: adc36040
Author: Joe Darcy
URL:
On Fri, 2 Feb 2024 23:36:41 GMT, Joe Darcy wrote:
> After the "this-escape" lint warning was added to javac (JDK-8015831), the
> base module was not updated to be able to compile with this warning enabled.
> This PR makes the necessary changes to allow the base module t
After the "this-escape" lint warning was added to javac (JDK-8015831), the base
module was not updated to be able to compile with this warning enabled. This PR
makes the necessary changes to allow the base module to build with the warning
enabled.
-
Commit messages:
- JDK-8325189:
On Fri, 2 Feb 2024 23:38:41 GMT, Joe Darcy wrote:
> In its initial form, the changes are tested on Linux. Later on, I'll do
> cross-platform builds to make sure there aren't any, say, windows-specific
> changes that are needed as well.
>
PS Builds pass on all plat
On Fri, 2 Feb 2024 23:38:41 GMT, Joe Darcy wrote:
> In its initial form, the changes are tested on Linux. Later on, I'll do
> cross-platform builds to make sure there aren't any, say, windows-specific
> changes that are needed as well.
>
> I can file a follow-up umbre
The jdk.javadoc module doesn't need the this-escape warning disabled to build;
it should be enabled.
-
Commit messages:
- JDK-8325266: Enable this-escape javac warning in jdk.javadoc
Changes: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/17715/files
Webrev: https://webrevs.openjdk.org/?repo=jd
On Mon, 5 Feb 2024 21:03:04 GMT, Joe Darcy wrote:
> The jdk.javadoc module doesn't need the this-escape warning disabled to
> build; it should be enabled.
This pull request has now been integrated.
Changeset: 729ae1d7
Author: Joe Darcy
URL:
https://git.openjdk.org
Add policy statement about lint warnings to various langtools modules.
-
Commit messages:
- JDK-8325268: Add policy statement to langtools makefiles concerning warnings
Changes: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/17718/files
Webrev: https://webrevs.openjdk.org/?repo=jdk&pr=17718&rang
On Tue, 6 Feb 2024 14:35:52 GMT, Daniel Fuchs wrote:
>> After the "this-escape" lint warning was added to javac (JDK-8015831), the
>> base module was not updated to be able to compile with this warning enabled.
>> This PR makes the necessary changes to allow the base module to build with
>> th
On Fri, 2 Feb 2024 23:36:41 GMT, Joe Darcy wrote:
> After the "this-escape" lint warning was added to javac (JDK-8015831), the
> base module was not updated to be able to compile with this warning enabled.
> This PR makes the necessary changes to allow the base module t
On Tue, 6 Feb 2024 02:28:32 GMT, Joe Darcy wrote:
> Add policy statement about lint warnings to various langtools modules.
This pull request has now been integrated.
Changeset: 3a1f4d0f
Author: Joe Darcy
URL:
https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/com
> After the "this-escape" lint warning was added to javac (JDK-8015831), the
> base module was not updated to be able to compile with this warning enabled.
> This PR makes the necessary changes to allow the base module to build with
> the warning enabled.
Joe Darcy has up
> After the "this-escape" lint warning was added to javac (JDK-8015831), the
> base module was not updated to be able to compile with this warning enabled.
> This PR makes the necessary changes to allow the base module to build with
> the warning enabled.
Joe Darcy has up
On Fri, 2 Feb 2024 23:36:41 GMT, Joe Darcy wrote:
> After the "this-escape" lint warning was added to javac (JDK-8015831), the
> base module was not updated to be able to compile with this warning enabled.
> This PR makes the necessary changes to allow the base module t
On Wed, 7 Feb 2024 19:28:11 GMT, Joe Darcy wrote:
>> After the "this-escape" lint warning was added to javac (JDK-8015831), the
>> base module was not updated to be able to compile with this warning enabled.
>> This PR makes the necessary changes to allow the base
On Wed, 7 Feb 2024 19:06:21 GMT, Weijun Wang wrote:
> Security changes look fine. Although I don't know how to remove those
> annotations later. A lot of compatibility impact.
In case you didn't see it, the warning message are listed in an attachment on
[JDK-8325263](https://bugs.openjdk.org/b
On Thu, 11 Apr 2024 17:52:14 GMT, Jonathan Gibbons wrote:
>> Please review a patch to add support for Markdown syntax in documentation
>> comments, as described in the associated JEP.
>>
>> Notable features:
>>
>> * support for `///` documentation comments in `JavaTokenizer`
>> * new module `j
Get JDK 24 underway.
-
Commit messages:
- JDK-8330182: Start of release updates for JDK 24
Changes: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/18787/files
Webrev: https://webrevs.openjdk.org/?repo=jdk&pr=18787&range=00
Issue: https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8330182
Stats: 101 lines
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/
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:
>
>>
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
> Get JDK 24 underway.
Joe Darcy has updated the pull request incrementally with two additional
commits since the last revision:
- Correct release date as observed in review feedback.
- Improve javadoc of class file update.
-
Changes:
- all: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/p
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
> Get JDK 24 underway.
Joe Darcy has updated the pull request with a new target base due to a merge or
a rebase. The incremental webrev excludes the unrelated changes brought in by
the merge/rebase. The pull request contains seven additional commits since the
last revision:
- Upd
On Wed, 1 May 2024 20:40:00 GMT, Jonathan Gibbons wrote:
> > There should be some quick testing of the new default method on Elements
> > using the VacuousElements implementation; see
> > `test/langtools/tools/javac/processing/model/util/elements` for some
> > examples.
>
> @jddarcy I've reor
On Tue, 7 May 2024 17:31:29 GMT, Jonathan Gibbons wrote:
>> Please review a patch to add support for Markdown syntax in documentation
>> comments, as described in the associated JEP.
>>
>> Notable features:
>>
>> * support for `///` documentation comments in `JavaTokenizer`
>> * new module `jd
> Get JDK 24 underway.
Joe Darcy has updated the pull request with a new target base due to a merge or
a rebase. The pull request now contains ten commits:
- Adjust test for deprecated options.
- Merge branch 'master' into JDK-8330188
- Update deprecated options test.
- Merge b
> Get JDK 24 underway.
Joe Darcy has updated the pull request with a new target base due to a merge or
a rebase. The pull request now contains 11 commits:
- Fix-up test.
- Merge branch 'master' into JDK-8330188
- Adjust test for deprecated options.
- Merge branch 'master
> Get JDK 24 underway.
Joe Darcy has updated the pull request with a new target base due to a merge or
a rebase. The pull request now contains 13 commits:
- Merge branch 'master' into JDK-8330188
- Merge branch 'master' into JDK-8330188
- Fix-up test.
- Merge b
> Get JDK 24 underway.
Joe Darcy has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional commit
since the last revision:
Add symbol files current with JDK 23 build 24.
-
Changes:
- all: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/18787/files
- new: https://git.openjdk.org/
> Get JDK 24 underway.
Joe Darcy has updated the pull request with a new target base due to a merge or
a rebase. The pull request now contains 16 commits:
- Correct release year.
- Merge branch 'master' into JDK-8330188
- Add symbol files current with JDK 23 build 24.
- Merge b
> Get JDK 24 underway.
Joe Darcy has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional commit
since the last revision:
Update symbol files for JDK 23 build 25.
-
Changes:
- all: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/18787/files
- new: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/p
> Get JDK 24 underway.
Joe Darcy has updated the pull request with a new target base due to a merge or
a rebase. The pull request now contains 18 commits:
- Merge branch 'master' into JDK-8330188
- Update symbol files for JDK 23 build 25.
- Correct release year.
- Merge branch
> Get JDK 24 underway.
Joe Darcy has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional commit
since the last revision:
Temporarily problem list java.lang.instrument tests until jar generation is
fixed.
-
Changes:
- all: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/18787/fi
> Get JDK 24 underway.
Joe Darcy has updated the pull request with a new target base due to a merge or
a rebase. The pull request now contains 23 commits:
- Update copyright.
- Updated problem list after bug fix.
- Merge branch 'master' into JDK-8330188
- Merge branch
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: 2
On Fri, 12 Aug 2022 19:54:59 GMT, Hannes Greule wrote:
> With this change, javac emits the MethodParameters attribute in cases where
> the JLS requires the information about synthetic and mandated parameters to
> be stored (see issue).
> Parameter names are *not* emitted unless the `-parameter`
On Fri, 12 Aug 2022 22:36:37 GMT, Joe Darcy wrote:
>> With this change, javac emits the MethodParameters attribute in cases where
>> the JLS requires the information about synthetic and mandated parameters to
>> be stored (see issue).
>> Parameter names are *not* emitte
On Sat, 13 Aug 2022 17:00:30 GMT, Hannes Greule wrote:
> > Should the use of MANDATED be conditional on the target class file version?
>
> I don't think this is needed. The JLS mentions the parameters of canonical
> record constructors in Java 14 already. Previous versions don't have records
>
On Sat, 13 Aug 2022 19:09:31 GMT, Hannes Greule wrote:
> Could you elaborate on that? Should I add a processor to the JavacTask in
> this test or write a separate one? (Maybe there is a similar test I can use
> as reference?) Thank you.
There are tests that can be used as a model around
test/
On Tue, 16 Aug 2022 07:17:41 GMT, Hannes Greule wrote:
> Sorry, it looks like there is no way to access the synthetic/mandated
> information using the annotation processing API. Am I missing something?
For reasons of providing a minimal core language model that could be reused,
less essential
On Thu, 18 Aug 2022 16:19:31 GMT, Hannes Greule wrote:
> Thanks, I started working on a test, but the results are somewhat
> inconsistent (no implicit parameter is present for inner class ctors, no
> synthetic parameters for enum ctors, parameter of valueOf is MANDATED,
> implicit parameters i
On Fri, 2 Sep 2022 01:26:01 GMT, Jie Fu wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> bootcycle fails to build after JDK-8173605 due to the following two warnings
>
> warning: [options] source value 8 is obsolete and will be removed in a future
> release
> warning: [options] target value 8 is obsolete and will be remo
In order to get the build-breakage fixed sooner, I'm re-sending out @DamonFool
's fix https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/pull/10135 under this PR.
-
Commit messages:
- JDK-8293288: bootcycle build failure after JDK-8173605
Changes: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/10148/files
Webrev:
On Fri, 2 Sep 2022 17:22:52 GMT, Joe Darcy wrote:
> In order to get the build-breakage fixed sooner, I'm re-sending out
> @DamonFool 's fix https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/pull/10135 under this PR.
Thanks @DamonFool for developing the fix!
-
PR: https://git.open
On Fri, 2 Sep 2022 17:22:52 GMT, Joe Darcy wrote:
> In order to get the build-breakage fixed sooner, I'm re-sending out
> @DamonFool 's fix https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/pull/10135 under this PR.
This pull request has now been integrated.
Changeset: b6477fdb
Author:
On Fri, 2 Sep 2022 17:22:52 GMT, Joe Darcy wrote:
> In order to get the build-breakage fixed sooner, I'm re-sending out
> @DamonFool 's fix https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/pull/10135 under this PR.
PS @DamonFool, sorry the contributor command I issued didn't have the effect
With the domain change from openjdk.java.net to openjdk.org, references to URLs
in the sources should be updated.
Updates were made using a shell script. I"ll run a copyright updater before any
push.
-
Commit messages:
- JDK-8294618: Update openjdk.java.net => openjdk.org
Changes
> With the domain change from openjdk.java.net to openjdk.org, references to
> URLs in the sources should be updated.
>
> Updates were made using a shell script. I"ll run a copyright updater before
> any push.
Joe Darcy has updated the pull request incrementally with two
> With the domain change from openjdk.java.net to openjdk.org, references to
> URLs in the sources should be updated.
>
> Updates were made using a shell script. I"ll run a copyright updater before
> any push.
Joe Darcy has updated the pull request incrementally with o
> With the domain change from openjdk.java.net to openjdk.org, references to
> URLs in the sources should be updated.
>
> Updates were made using a shell script. I"ll run a copyright updater before
> any push.
Joe Darcy has updated the pull request incrementally with o
On Fri, 30 Sep 2022 00:48:02 GMT, Mikael Vidstedt wrote:
> Switch to https where needed/applicable while at it?
Good idea; might as well do the update in a single changeset.
-
PR: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/10501
> With the domain change from openjdk.java.net to openjdk.org, references to
> URLs in the sources should be updated.
>
> Updates were made using a shell script. I"ll run a copyright updater before
> any push.
Joe Darcy has updated the pull request with a new target base
On Fri, 30 Sep 2022 13:59:12 GMT, Magnus Ihse Bursie wrote:
> Also, FWIW, there are 100+ hits in `test` as well. But that is so many it
> might warrant a separate PR..?
Yes; I think it is sufficient to update src and doc with this PR.
-
PR: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/10501
On Fri, 30 Sep 2022 17:38:54 GMT, Phil Race wrote:
> This is correct. AccessBridge.h is published with the include/header files of
> the JDK and anyone reading it there can't exactly make use of "../"
Update to persistent git links.
-
PR: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/10501
On Thu, 29 Sep 2022 13:11:03 GMT, Raffaello Giulietti
wrote:
> This fixes misleading indentations, which allows enabling the (currently
> disabled) `misleading-indentation` warning flag on two `.gmk` files.
Marked as reviewed by darcy (Reviewer).
-
PR: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk
On Fri, 30 Sep 2022 20:25:28 GMT, Joe Darcy wrote:
> Also, FWIW, there are 100+ hits in `test` as well. But that is so many it
> might warrant a separate PR..?
Filed a few follow-up bugs:
JDK-8294724: Update openjdk.java.net => openjdk.org in tests (umbrella)
JDK-829472
> With the domain change from openjdk.java.net to openjdk.org, references to
> URLs in the sources should be updated.
>
> Updates were made using a shell script. I"ll run a copyright updater before
> any push.
Joe Darcy has updated the pull request incrementally with o
> With the domain change from openjdk.java.net to openjdk.org, references to
> URLs in the sources should be updated.
>
> Updates were made using a shell script. I"ll run a copyright updater before
> any push.
Joe Darcy has updated the pull request incrementally with o
On Mon, 3 Oct 2022 17:17:39 GMT, Joe Darcy wrote:
> > Also, FWIW, there are 100+ hits in `test` as well. But that is so many it
> > might warrant a separate PR..?
>
> Filed a few follow-up bugs:
>
> JDK-8294724: Update openjdk.java.net => openjdk.org in tests (umbre
> With the domain change from openjdk.java.net to openjdk.org, references to
> URLs in the sources should be updated.
>
> Updates were made using a shell script. I"ll run a copyright updater before
> any push.
Joe Darcy has updated the pull request with a new target base
On Mon, 3 Oct 2022 20:04:38 GMT, Phil Race wrote:
>> Joe Darcy has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional
>> commit since the last revision:
>>
>> Update make directory.
>
> src/jdk.accessibility/windows/native/include/bridge/AccessBrid
> With the domain change from openjdk.java.net to openjdk.org, references to
> URLs in the sources should be updated.
>
> Updates were made using a shell script. I"ll run a copyright updater before
> any push.
Joe Darcy has updated the pull request with a new target base
On Fri, 30 Sep 2022 00:33:57 GMT, Joe Darcy wrote:
> With the domain change from openjdk.java.net to openjdk.org, references to
> URLs in the sources should be updated.
>
> Updates were made using a shell script. I"ll run a copyright updater before
> any push.
This pull
On Tue, 4 Oct 2022 22:20:57 GMT, Mikael Vidstedt wrote:
> With the JDK 19 GA out it's time to bump the minimum boot JDK version for
> mainline/JDK 20.
>
> Testing: tier1-5, GHA builds
Marked as reviewed by darcy (Reviewer).
-
PR: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/10564
On 10/25/2022 7:27 AM, Andrew Haley wrote:
On Thu, 20 Oct 2022 20:26:47 GMT, Vladimir Ivanov wrote:
The GCC bugs with `-ffast-math` only corrupts `FTZ` and `DAZ`.
But `RC` and exception masks may be corrupted as well the same way and I
believe the consequences are be similar (silent divergen
1 - 100 of 179 matches
Mail list logo
