On Tue, 8 Apr 2025 09:02:25 GMT, Hannes Wallnöfer wrote:
>> Please review an enhancement to treat classes and interfaces that are not
>> included and not unconditionally exported as hidden. This means they do not
>> show up in the generated documentation even if they are implemented or
>> exte
On Mon, 13 Jan 2025 02:59:52 GMT, SendaoYan wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> This pull request contains a backport of commit
> [e7e8f60c](https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/commit/e7e8f60c9bedd5622525cc4339300b438eedc9fd)
> from the [openjdk/jdk](https://git.openjdk.org/jdk) repository to jdk24.
>
> Test tes
On Mon, 13 Jan 2025 02:59:52 GMT, SendaoYan wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> This pull request contains a backport of commit
> [e7e8f60c](https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/commit/e7e8f60c9bedd5622525cc4339300b438eedc9fd)
> from the [openjdk/jdk](https://git.openjdk.org/jdk) repository to jdk24.
>
> Test tes
On Tue, 28 Jan 2025 22:42:00 GMT, Alexey Semenyuk wrote:
> Reapply [JDK-8348348](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8348348)
This looks good. I confirm that this is the correct backout patch
for[JDK-834](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-834), thus resotring
the fix for[JDK-8348348]
On Tue, 28 Jan 2025 19:54:21 GMT, Alexey Semenyuk wrote:
> > zip_util.c(94): error C2054: expected '(' to follow 'DEF_STATIC_JNI_OnLoad'
>
> It doesn't look like it complains about undefined DEF_STATIC_JNI_OnLoad
The compilation error I saw did.
A Mach5 job I submitted passed in one case where
On Tue, 28 Jan 2025 19:22:52 GMT, Jiangli Zhou wrote:
> Please review this workaround for the compiler error on Windows. This error
> occurs in closed build with custom make logic that uses zip_util.c. The error
> indicates `DEF_STATIC_JNI_OnLoad` is not defined, thus disable the macro on
> Wi
On Tue, 28 Jan 2025 19:22:52 GMT, Jiangli Zhou wrote:
> Please review this workaround for the compiler error on Windows. This error
> occurs in closed build with custom make logic that uses zip_util.c. The error
> indicates `DEF_STATIC_JNI_OnLoad` is not defined, thus disable the macro on
> Wi
On Fri, 20 Dec 2024 19:02:38 GMT, Mandy Chung wrote:
> A few jpackage tests invoke `jlink --add-modules ALL-MODULE-PATH` without
> `--module-path` and they now fail because of JDK-8345259 which requires
> `--module-path` to be set when `ALL-MODULE-PATH` is used. The fix is to add
> `--add-mod
On Fri, 20 Dec 2024 19:02:38 GMT, Mandy Chung wrote:
> A few jpackage tests invoke `jlink --add-modules ALL-MODULE-PATH` without
> `--module-path` and they now fail because of JDK-8345259 which requires
> `--module-path` to be set when `ALL-MODULE-PATH` is used. The fix is to add
> `--add-mod
On Fri, 20 Dec 2024 19:02:38 GMT, Mandy Chung wrote:
> A few jpackage tests invoke `jlink --add-modules ALL-MODULE-PATH` without
> `--module-path` and they now fail because of JDK-8345259 which requires
> `--module-path` to be set when `ALL-MODULE-PATH` is used. The fix is to add
> `--add-mod
eviewed by Amit Kumar, Alexey Semenyuk, Iris Clark and Kevin Rushforth.
>
> Thanks!
Looks good, and I confirm that it is a clean backport. It will need a review by
someone with a Reviewer role in the jdk project.
-
Marked as reviewed by kcr (Author).
PR Review: https://git
On Tue, 17 Dec 2024 07:49:31 GMT, Sorna Sarathi N wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> This pull request contains a backport of commit
> [458979d8](https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/commit/458979d83ac784273263b54516369d79764010dd)
> from the [openjdk/jdk](https://git.openjdk.org/jdk) repository.
>
> The commit
eviewed by Amit Kumar, Alexey Semenyuk, Iris Clark and Kevin Rushforth.
>
> Thanks!
@irisclark Can you review this backport?
-
PR Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/22785#issuecomment-2554655611
On Thu, 12 Dec 2024 08:04:38 GMT, Sorna Sarathi wrote:
> This PR adds missing Classpath exception statements in several files.
>
> JDK Issue: [JDK-8346069](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8346069)
This looks correct to me. The missing Classpath exception was not intentional.
This should be
Yes, jpackage will support either v4 or v5 as of JDK 24:
https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8319457
You can also see this in the early access release notes:
https://jdk.java.net/24/release-notes
(bottom of the page)
-- Kevin
On 12/11/2024 12:28 PM, Davide Perini wrote:
As subject.
Curren
No, The Skara PR in question isn't proposing to do this. Rather it is
checking that _if_ the Copyright header is updated, it is syntactically
correct.
It would be an item for further discussion to have Skara actually get
into the business of whether the copyright header should be updated and
On Mon, 12 Aug 2024 17:22:47 GMT, Kevin Rushforth wrote:
> Deprecate the `jdk.jsobject` module for removal from the JDK, and ship it
> with JavaFX instead.
>
> See [JDK-8337280](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8337280) / PR
> openjdk/jfx#1529 for the JavaFX PR that will inc
owing the version of the module shipped with JavaFX to be
> used in favor of the deprecated module in the JDK itself.
Kevin Rushforth 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/rebas
owing the version of the module shipped with JavaFX to be
> used in favor of the deprecated module in the JDK itself.
Kevin Rushforth 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 me
On Mon, 23 Sep 2024 16:32:23 GMT, Kevin Rushforth wrote:
>> Deprecate the `jdk.jsobject` module for removal from the JDK, and ship it
>> with JavaFX instead.
>>
>> See [JDK-8337280](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8337280) / PR
>> openjdk/jfx#1529 for the J
owing the version of the module shipped with JavaFX to be
> used in favor of the deprecated module in the JDK itself.
Kevin Rushforth 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 mer
On Mon, 12 Aug 2024 17:22:47 GMT, Kevin Rushforth wrote:
> Deprecate the `jdk.jsobject` module for removal from the JDK, and ship it
> with JavaFX instead.
>
> See [JDK-8337280](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8337280) / PR
> openjdk/jfx#1529 for the JavaFX PR that will inc
On Fri, 6 Sep 2024 01:52:10 GMT, Roger Riggs wrote:
> Looks good. I'll review the CSR when its ready.
Thanks.
> The changes to make jdk.jsobject an upgradeable module looks right.
Thanks for checking. My testing primarily focused on this aspect of the change,
so it's pretty well tested.
> I
On Mon, 12 Aug 2024 17:22:47 GMT, Kevin Rushforth wrote:
> Deprecate the `jdk.jsobject` module for removal from the JDK, and ship it
> with JavaFX instead.
>
> See [JDK-8337280](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8337280) / PR
> openjdk/jfx#1529 for the JavaFX PR that will inc
Deprecate the `jdk.jsobject` module for removal from the JDK, and ship it with
JavaFX instead.
See [JDK-8337280](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8337280) / PR
openjdk/jfx#1529 for the JavaFX PR that will include the module with JavaFX.
That PR describes the needed test scenarios.
This PR d
On Thu, 23 May 2024 06:20:51 GMT, Alan Bateman wrote:
> > Further, I confirm that if I pass that option to jlink or jpackage when
> > creating a custom runtime, there is no warning.
>
> Great! What about jpackage without a custom runtime, wondering if
> --java-options can be tested.
Yes, poin
On Fri, 17 May 2024 13:38:25 GMT, Maurizio Cimadamore
wrote:
>> This PR implements [JEP 472](https://openjdk.org/jeps/472), by restricting
>> the use of JNI in the following ways:
>>
>> * `System::load` and `System::loadLibrary` are now restricted methods
>> * `Runtime::load` and `Runtime::loa
On Mon, 13 May 2024 18:00:27 GMT, Chen Liang wrote:
>> I don't want to merge or rebase on an active PR. It should get fixed once
>> this is integrated.
>
> Sure, this comment serves as a note to reviewers that these 2 header changes
> have been committed in other changes and thus can be safely
Also , as a helpful hint, Skara has reminded you not to force push [1].
I see that you have done this a couple times, which suggests you might
be in the habit of doing this as part of your workflow. Please don't.
Instead, if you need to make changes, push the changes as additional
commits. Skar
On Tue, 13 Feb 2024 16:09:04 GMT, Alan Bateman wrote:
>> 8325590: Regression in round-tripping UTF-16 strings after JDK-8311906
>
> This is for jdk22u, not jdk22
@AlanBateman You might want to unapprove this PR (go to "Files" and submit a
review with "Request Changes")
UPDATE: I see you alread
On Tue, 13 Feb 2024 15:57:31 GMT, Roger Riggs wrote:
> 8325590: Regression in round-tripping UTF-16 strings after JDK-8311906
@RogerRiggs Since this is deferred out of JDK 22, you need to close this PR and
open a new one against jdk22u.
-
PR Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk22/
On Wed, 20 Dec 2023 19:00:50 GMT, Alisen Chung wrote:
> Backport of JDK-8322041
The patch looks good. Additionally, I confirmed that the files in question are
identical to those in jdk mainline after this patch is applied.
It will need a "R"eviewer to approve.
-
Marked as reviewe
On Fri, 16 Jun 2023 20:36:07 GMT, Jiangli Zhou wrote:
> 8307858: [REDO] JDK-8307194 Add make target for optionally building a
> complete set of all JDK and hotspot libjvm static libraries
Since this Enhancement was rejected for JDK 21, this PR should be closed.
-
PR Comment: https
On Tue, 20 Jun 2023 15:49:42 GMT, Glavo wrote:
> 8310105: LoongArch64 builds are broken after JDK-8304913
@Glavo If the priority of the bug, which is listed as P4, is correct (which I
suspect it is not), this would not meet the criteria for integrating into JDK
21 during RDP1. If this is objec
On Mon, 19 Jun 2023 14:58:13 GMT, Per Minborg wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> This pull request contains a backport of commit
> [b412fc79](https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/commit/b412fc79c3c2548df10918090beedaf6b2d08d96)
> from the [openjdk/jdk](https://git.openjdk.org/jdk) repository.
>
> The commit bein
On Mon, 19 Jun 2023 14:58:13 GMT, Per Minborg wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> This pull request contains a backport of commit
> [b412fc79](https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/commit/b412fc79c3c2548df10918090beedaf6b2d08d96)
> from the [openjdk/jdk](https://git.openjdk.org/jdk) repository.
>
> The commit bein
On Fri, 16 Jun 2023 20:36:07 GMT, Jiangli Zhou wrote:
> 8307858: [REDO] JDK-8307194 Add make target for optionally building a
> complete set of all JDK and hotspot libjvm static libraries
As a P4 enhancement, this doesn't meet the criteria for integration into JDK 21
during [Rampdown Phase
1]
On Mon, 12 Jun 2023 21:21:05 GMT, Justin Lu wrote:
> Please review this PR which updates the JDK's localized resources since the
> previous L10n translation drop (1/26).
>
> To help with reviewing the changes, @jonathan-gibbons created a tool which
> displays the localized changes next to the
On Mon, 12 Jun 2023 21:21:05 GMT, Justin Lu wrote:
> Please review this PR which updates the JDK's localized resources since the
> previous L10n translation drop (1/26).
>
> To help with reviewing the changes, @jonathan-gibbons created a tool which
> displays the localized changes next to the
On Mon, 12 Jun 2023 21:27:05 GMT, Justin Lu wrote:
>> Please review this PR which updates the JDK's localized resources since the
>> previous L10n translation drop (1/26).
>>
>> To help with reviewing the changes, @jonathan-gibbons created a tool which
>> displays the localized changes next to
On Mon, 12 Jun 2023 15:19:51 GMT, Maurizio Cimadamore
wrote:
>> Btw, besides the other 2 issues this solves (from the other PR), I think
>> this also solves: https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8255350
>
>> Btw, besides the other 2 issues this solves (from the other PR), I think
>> this also s
On Mon, 12 Jun 2023 10:29:07 GMT, Maurizio Cimadamore
wrote:
>> Maurizio Cimadamore has updated the pull request with a new target base due
>> to a merge or a rebase. The pull request now contains 29 commits:
>>
>> - Merge branch 'master' into javadoc_fixes
>> - Fix issue with ArithmeticExce
On Sun, 15 Jan 2023 01:56:06 GMT, Jie Fu wrote:
>> src/java.desktop/share/native/libharfbuzz/hb-meta.hh line 191:
>>
>>> 189: #define hb_int_max(T) hb_int_max::value
>>> 190:
>>> 191: #if defined(__GNUC__) && __GNUC__ < 5 && !defined(__clang__)
>>
>> Normally, such changes in third-party libra
On Sat, 14 Jan 2023 14:28:32 GMT, Jie Fu wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Please review the fix for the build failure with clang-15.
>
> 1. -Wbitwise-instead-of-logical
>
>1) src/hotspot/share/oops/generateOopMap.cpp <--- fixed the
> warning
>2) src/hotspot/share/runtime/notificationThre
On Sat, 14 Jan 2023 14:28:32 GMT, Jie Fu wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Please review the fix for the build failure with clang-15.
>
> 1. -Wbitwise-instead-of-logical
>
>1) src/hotspot/share/oops/generateOopMap.cpp <--- fixed the
> warning
>2) src/hotspot/share/runtime/notificationThre
It's still there.
https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/tree/master/src/demo/share/jfc/SwingSet2
Btw, client-libs-...@openjdk.org (included) is the relevant mailing list
for this message, not core-libs-dev.
-- Kevin
On 10/11/2022 1:54 AM, David Holmes wrote:
On 11/10/2022 4:38 pm, Amit wrote:
Cod
Java Sound is in the client-libs area. You can file the bug yourself at
https://bugreport.java.com/ if you like, or ask the sponsor of your bug
(when one steps forward) to do it.
If you want to contribute your fix, please see the contributing a patch
section [1] in the JDK Developers Guide for
On Wed, 21 Sep 2022 08:35:30 GMT, Magnus Ihse Bursie wrote:
> While this particular issue was closed now, this is perhaps yet another
> indication that the "import modules" thing is causing problems, and should be
> removed now that it is not used anymore. I created
> [JDK-8294095](https://bug
On Sat, 17 Sep 2022 04:03:35 GMT, Leslie Zhai wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> @dumasun reported the issue:
>>
>> Configured with jfx-ls-modular-sdk:
>>
>>
>> configure --with-import-modules=modular-sdk
>>
>>
>> `make run-test CONF=fastdebug TEST="tools/launcher/FXLauncherTest.java"`
>> failed:
>>
>>
On Mon, 19 Sep 2022 00:45:32 GMT, Leslie Zhai wrote:
> Hi,
>
> @dumasun reported the issue:
>
> Configured with jfx-ls-modular-sdk:
>
>
> configure --with-import-modules=modular-sdk
>
>
> `make run-test CONF=fastdebug
> TEST="jdk/modules/etc/VerifyModuleDelegation.java"` failed:
>
>
> --
On Mon, 19 Sep 2022 00:45:32 GMT, Leslie Zhai wrote:
> Hi,
>
> @dumasun reported the issue:
>
> Configured with jfx-ls-modular-sdk:
>
>
> configure --with-import-modules=modular-sdk
>
>
> `make run-test CONF=fastdebug
> TEST="jdk/modules/etc/VerifyModuleDelegation.java"` failed:
>
>
> --
On Fri, 16 Sep 2022 07:35:03 GMT, Leslie Zhai wrote:
> Hi,
>
> @dumasun reported the issue:
>
> Configured with jfx-ls-modular-sdk:
>
>
> configure --with-import-modules=modular-sdk
>
>
> `make run-test CONF=fastdebug TEST="tools/launcher/FXLauncherTest.java"`
> failed:
>
>
> --S
52 matches
Mail list logo
