On Fri, 31 May 2024 14:34:16 GMT, Sonia Zaldana Calles
wrote:
>> Sonia Zaldana Calles has updated the pull request incrementally with one
>> additional commit since the last revision:
>>
>> Decreasing diff size addressing unnecessary changes
>
> Hi all,
>
> I think there's some consensus
On Fri, 31 May 2024 14:34:16 GMT, Sonia Zaldana Calles
wrote:
>> Sonia Zaldana Calles has updated the pull request incrementally with one
>> additional commit since the last revision:
>>
>> Decreasing diff size addressing unnecessary changes
>
> Hi all,
>
> I think there's some consensus
On Fri, 31 May 2024 14:34:16 GMT, Sonia Zaldana Calles
wrote:
>> Sonia Zaldana Calles has updated the pull request incrementally with one
>> additional commit since the last revision:
>>
>> Decreasing diff size addressing unnecessary changes
>
> Hi all,
>
> I think there's some consensus
> Hi folks,
>
> This PR aims to fix
> [JDK-8329581](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8329581).
>
> I think the regression got introduced in
> [JDK-8315458](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8315458).
>
> In the issue linked above,
>
On Tue, 4 Jun 2024 13:17:11 GMT, Thomas Stuefe wrote:
> Curious, why tier 1 to 3 specifically? Is there anything specific in tier 3
> you want to have tested?
I think just prudent to run more tests when touching the launcher as it has
options that aren't tested much in tier1. Shouldn't be an
On Tue, 4 Jun 2024 12:59:54 GMT, Jaikiran Pai wrote:
> I'll file follow up issue(s) and also trigger CI testing of this PR.
Thanks, the regressions fixed here are important to fix. It's unfortunate there
the original changes weren't changes weren't caught by tests. There is a good
test
On Tue, 4 Jun 2024 13:34:30 GMT, Sonia Zaldana Calles
wrote:
>> Hi folks,
>>
>> This PR aims to fix
>> [JDK-8329581](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8329581).
>>
>> I think the regression got introduced in
>> [JDK-8315458](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8315458).
>>
>> In the
On Fri, 31 May 2024 14:34:16 GMT, Sonia Zaldana Calles
wrote:
>> Sonia Zaldana Calles has updated the pull request incrementally with one
>> additional commit since the last revision:
>>
>> Decreasing diff size addressing unnecessary changes
>
> Hi all,
>
> I think there's some consensus
On Fri, 31 May 2024 14:34:16 GMT, Sonia Zaldana Calles
wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I think there's some consensus that we need some follow up cleanup issues for
> the JNI spec, renaming constants, fixing return codes, etc.
>
> Seeing how that grows the scope of the issue quite a bit, I'd like to
On Thu, 9 May 2024 19:52:12 GMT, Sonia Zaldana Calles
wrote:
>> Hi folks,
>>
>> This PR aims to fix
>> [JDK-8329581](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8329581).
>>
>> I think the regression got introduced in
>> [JDK-8315458](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8315458).
>>
>> In the
On Thu, 9 May 2024 19:52:12 GMT, Sonia Zaldana Calles
wrote:
>> Hi folks,
>>
>> This PR aims to fix
>> [JDK-8329581](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8329581).
>>
>> I think the regression got introduced in
>> [JDK-8315458](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8315458).
>>
>> In the
On Tue, 14 May 2024 07:14:09 GMT, Thomas Stuefe wrote:
> but it does not state explicitly that an exception is thrown on every error,
> or whether there are cases where the API can return NULL but not throw an
> exception, or vice versa.
>
> So, I'd check for both. Or, if we think that both
On Mon, 13 May 2024 18:01:25 GMT, Sonia Zaldana Calles
wrote:
> > This mostly looks good. I'm just puzzled CHECK_EXCEPTION_NULL_FAIL. The JNI
> > functions GetStaticMethodID, GetMethodID and NewObject return NULL with a
> > pending exception when they fail. So I would expect
> >
On Sun, 12 May 2024 18:52:30 GMT, Alan Bateman wrote:
> This mostly looks good. I'm just puzzled CHECK_EXCEPTION_NULL_FAIL. The JNI
> functions GetStaticMethodID, GetMethodID and NewObject return NULL with a
> pending exception when they fail. So I would expect CHECK_EXCEPTION_NULL_FAIL
> to
On Thu, 9 May 2024 19:52:12 GMT, Sonia Zaldana Calles
wrote:
>> Hi folks,
>>
>> This PR aims to fix
>> [JDK-8329581](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8329581).
>>
>> I think the regression got introduced in
>> [JDK-8315458](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8315458).
>>
>> In the
On Thu, 9 May 2024 19:48:53 GMT, Sonia Zaldana Calles
wrote:
>> Pre-existing: Man, I cannot grok the complex return code handling, tbh.
>>
>> We have the local `ret` variable holding a return code. We also hand codes
>> to CHECK_EXCEPTION_LEAVE as macro argument. But we don't hand codes to
On Thu, 9 May 2024 19:52:12 GMT, Sonia Zaldana Calles
wrote:
>> Hi folks,
>>
>> This PR aims to fix
>> [JDK-8329581](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8329581).
>>
>> I think the regression got introduced in
>> [JDK-8315458](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8315458).
>>
>> In the
On Thu, 9 May 2024 19:48:53 GMT, Sonia Zaldana Calles
wrote:
> > This may be food for another RFE, to keep this patch minimal. But a good
> > solution, to me, would be like this:
> >
> > * have the same logic for return codes (1 = error, 0 = success) to ease
> > understanding
> > * have
On Wed, 8 May 2024 09:37:58 GMT, Thomas Stuefe wrote:
> This may be food for another RFE, to keep this patch minimal. But a good
> solution, to me, would be like this:
>
> * have the same logic for return codes (1 = error, 0 = success) to ease
> understanding
> * have clearly named constants
> Hi folks,
>
> This PR aims to fix
> [JDK-8329581](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8329581).
>
> I think the regression got introduced in
> [JDK-8315458](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8315458).
>
> In the issue linked above,
>
On Mon, 6 May 2024 19:06:10 GMT, Sonia Zaldana Calles
wrote:
>> Hi folks,
>>
>> This PR aims to fix
>> [JDK-8329581](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8329581).
>>
>> I think the regression got introduced in
>> [JDK-8315458](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8315458).
>>
>> In the
On Mon, 6 May 2024 19:06:10 GMT, Sonia Zaldana Calles
wrote:
>> Hi folks,
>>
>> This PR aims to fix
>> [JDK-8329581](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8329581).
>>
>> I think the regression got introduced in
>> [JDK-8315458](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8315458).
>>
>> In the
> Hi folks,
>
> This PR aims to fix
> [JDK-8329581](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8329581).
>
> I think the regression got introduced in
> [JDK-8315458](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8315458).
>
> In the issue linked above,
>
On Mon, 6 May 2024 16:30:11 GMT, Sonia Zaldana Calles
wrote:
>> Hi folks,
>>
>> This PR aims to fix
>> [JDK-8329581](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8329581).
>>
>> I think the regression got introduced in
>> [JDK-8315458](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8315458).
>>
>> In the
On Mon, 6 May 2024 16:30:11 GMT, Sonia Zaldana Calles
wrote:
>> Hi folks,
>>
>> This PR aims to fix
>> [JDK-8329581](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8329581).
>>
>> I think the regression got introduced in
>> [JDK-8315458](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8315458).
>>
>> In the
> Hi folks,
>
> This PR aims to fix
> [JDK-8329581](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8329581).
>
> I think the regression got introduced in
> [JDK-8315458](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8315458).
>
> In the issue linked above,
>
On Mon, 6 May 2024 10:21:12 GMT, Jaikiran Pai wrote:
>> Hi @mlchung, thanks for the feedback! I’ve pushed the updates.
>>
>> Just a question about ```NULL_CHECK0```.
>>
>> ```NULL_CHECK0``` reports the error message and then the exception is
>> described in ```CHECK_EXCEPTION_LEAVE```. This
On Tue, 23 Apr 2024 18:21:30 GMT, Sonia Zaldana Calles
wrote:
>>> Just to clarify, this would still mean converting “isStatic” and “noArgs”
>>> from local variables to fields so I am able to read them on the C side of
>>> things. Did I understand this correctly?
>>
>> I'm okay with adding
> Hi folks,
>
> This PR aims to fix
> [JDK-8329581](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8329581).
>
> I think the regression got introduced in
> [JDK-8315458](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8315458).
>
> In the issue linked above,
>
> Hi folks,
>
> This PR aims to fix
> [JDK-8329581](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8329581).
>
> I think the regression got introduced in
> [JDK-8315458](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8315458).
>
> In the issue linked above,
>
On Wed, 24 Apr 2024 14:49:55 GMT, Sonia Zaldana Calles
wrote:
>> Hi folks,
>>
>> This PR aims to fix
>> [JDK-8329581](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8329581).
>>
>> I think the regression got introduced in
>> [JDK-8315458](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8315458).
>>
>> In the
> Hi folks,
>
> This PR aims to fix
> [JDK-8329581](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8329581).
>
> I think the regression got introduced in
> [JDK-8315458](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8315458).
>
> In the issue linked above,
>
On Tue, 23 Apr 2024 18:21:42 GMT, Sonia Zaldana Calles
wrote:
>> Hi folks,
>>
>> This PR aims to fix
>> [JDK-8329581](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8329581).
>>
>> I think the regression got introduced in
>> [JDK-8315458](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8315458).
>>
>> In the
On Tue, 23 Apr 2024 18:21:30 GMT, Sonia Zaldana Calles
wrote:
> The JNI error message didn’t previously get reported before the regression
> was introduced, so I just wanted to make sure we were okay with this.
I think such errors have a very high potential to confuse the hell out of the
On Fri, 19 Apr 2024 17:04:30 GMT, Mandy Chung wrote:
>> @lahodaj
>>
>>> I would suggest to take the test from 18753 though - doing a change like
>>> this without a test may lead to hard-to-find regressions in the future.
>>> (Note the current test should guard against both JDK-8329420 and
> Hi folks,
>
> This PR aims to fix
> [JDK-8329581](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8329581).
>
> I think the regression got introduced in
> [JDK-8315458](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8315458).
>
> In the issue linked above,
>
On Fri, 19 Apr 2024 19:39:09 GMT, Sonia Zaldana Calles
wrote:
>> Hi folks,
>>
>> This PR aims to fix
>> [JDK-8329581](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8329581).
>>
>> I think the regression got introduced in
>> [JDK-8315458](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8315458).
>>
>> In the
> Hi folks,
>
> This PR aims to fix
> [JDK-8329581](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8329581).
>
> I think the regression got introduced in
> [JDK-8315458](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8315458).
>
> In the issue linked above,
>
On Mon, 15 Apr 2024 18:25:02 GMT, Sonia Zaldana Calles
wrote:
> Hi folks,
>
> This PR aims to fix
> [JDK-8329581](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8329581).
>
> I think the regression got introduced in
> [JDK-8315458](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8315458).
>
> In the issue
> Hi folks,
>
> This PR aims to fix
> [JDK-8329581](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8329581).
>
> I think the regression got introduced in
> [JDK-8315458](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8315458).
>
> In the issue linked above,
>
On Thu, 18 Apr 2024 20:41:05 GMT, Sonia Zaldana Calles
wrote:
> Just to clarify, this would still mean converting “isStatic” and “noArgs”
> from local variables to fields so I am able to read them on the C side of
> things. Did I understand this correctly?
I'm okay with adding static boolean
On Thu, 18 Apr 2024 07:34:24 GMT, Jan Lahoda wrote:
>> Hi folks,
>>
>> This PR aims to fix
>> [JDK-8329581](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8329581).
>>
>> I think the regression got introduced in
>> [JDK-8315458](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8315458).
>>
>> In the issue
On Mon, 15 Apr 2024 18:25:02 GMT, Sonia Zaldana Calles
wrote:
> Hi folks,
>
> This PR aims to fix
> [JDK-8329581](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8329581).
>
> I think the regression got introduced in
> [JDK-8315458](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8315458).
>
> In the issue
On Tue, 16 Apr 2024 10:30:14 GMT, Alan Bateman wrote:
>> Thinking about this some more, would it not be possible to just use the
>> mainMethod directly down in C?
>
> The changes JEP 463 went through many iterations, it was a fine balance of
> avoiding too many transitions and upcalls, and at
On Mon, 15 Apr 2024 18:25:02 GMT, Sonia Zaldana Calles
wrote:
> Hi folks,
>
> This PR aims to fix
> [JDK-8329581](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8329581).
>
> I think the regression got introduced in
> [JDK-8315458](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8315458).
>
> In the issue
On Mon, 15 Apr 2024 18:25:02 GMT, Sonia Zaldana Calles
wrote:
> Hi folks,
>
> This PR aims to fix
> [JDK-8329581](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8329581).
>
> I think the regression got introduced in
> [JDK-8315458](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8315458).
>
> In the issue
On Mon, 15 Apr 2024 18:25:02 GMT, Sonia Zaldana Calles
wrote:
> Hi folks,
>
> This PR aims to fix
> [JDK-8329581](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8329581).
>
> I think the regression got introduced in
> [JDK-8315458](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8315458).
>
> In the issue
On Tue, 16 Apr 2024 06:30:55 GMT, Alan Bateman wrote:
>> Hi folks,
>>
>> This PR aims to fix
>> [JDK-8329581](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8329581).
>>
>> I think the regression got introduced in
>> [JDK-8315458](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8315458).
>>
>> In the issue
On Tue, 16 Apr 2024 08:25:01 GMT, Thomas Stuefe wrote:
>> src/java.base/share/classes/sun/launcher/LauncherHelper.java line 912:
>>
>>> 910: private static final int MAIN_WITHOUT_ARGS = 1;
>>> 911: private static final int MAIN_NONSTATIC = 2;
>>> 912: private static int mainType =
On Tue, 16 Apr 2024 07:55:26 GMT, Thomas Stuefe wrote:
>> Hi folks,
>>
>> This PR aims to fix
>> [JDK-8329581](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8329581).
>>
>> I think the regression got introduced in
>> [JDK-8315458](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8315458).
>>
>> In the issue
On Mon, 15 Apr 2024 18:25:02 GMT, Sonia Zaldana Calles
wrote:
> Hi folks,
>
> This PR aims to fix
> [JDK-8329581](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8329581).
>
> I think the regression got introduced in
> [JDK-8315458](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8315458).
>
> In the issue
On Mon, 15 Apr 2024 18:25:02 GMT, Sonia Zaldana Calles
wrote:
> Hi folks,
>
> This PR aims to fix
> [JDK-8329581](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8329581).
>
> I think the regression got introduced in
> [JDK-8315458](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8315458).
>
> In the issue
On Mon, 15 Apr 2024 18:25:02 GMT, Sonia Zaldana Calles
wrote:
> Hi folks,
>
> This PR aims to fix
> [JDK-8329581](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8329581).
>
> I think the regression got introduced in
> [JDK-8315458](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8315458).
>
> In the issue
On Mon, 15 Apr 2024 18:25:02 GMT, Sonia Zaldana Calles
wrote:
> Hi folks,
>
> This PR aims to fix
> [JDK-8329581](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8329581).
>
> I think the regression got introduced in
> [JDK-8315458](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8315458).
>
> In the issue
On Mon, 15 Apr 2024 18:25:02 GMT, Sonia Zaldana Calles
wrote:
> Hi folks,
>
> This PR aims to fix
> [JDK-8329581](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8329581).
>
> I think the regression got introduced in
> [JDK-8315458](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8315458).
>
> In the issue
Hi folks,
This PR aims to fix [JDK-8329581](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8329581).
I think the regression got introduced in
[JDK-8315458](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8315458).
In the issue linked above,
56 matches
Mail list logo
