On Fri, 16 Jun 2023 11:08:41 GMT, Jaikiran Pai wrote:
> Can I please get a review of this change which proposes to address the recent
> github actions failures?
>
> As noted in https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8310259 the commit in this PR
> pins the `msys2/setup-msys2` to a previous
On Fri, 16 Jun 2023 11:08:41 GMT, Jaikiran Pai wrote:
> Can I please get a review of this change which proposes to address the recent
> github actions failures?
>
> As noted in https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8310259 the commit in this PR
> pins the `msys2/setup-msys2` to a previous
Can I please get a review of this change which proposes to address the recent
github actions failures?
As noted in https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8310259 the commit in this PR
pins the `msys2/setup-msys2` to a previous release (that works) and also
reverts the change that was done in
On Fri, 16 Jun 2023 14:51:21 GMT, Jonathan Gibbons wrote:
> To those investigating the msys issue, do we know why and where `CLASSPATH`
> is being used? In general, that's a deprecated style of use.
The make files in jtreg build have a bunch of `CLASSPATH` usages while
launching `javac`. For
On Fri, 16 Jun 2023 22:08:19 GMT, Daniel D. Daugherty
wrote:
> GHA is failing on windows; is this related to this PR or something else?
The windows build failures occur with other PRs as well, e.g.
https://github.com/openjdk/jdk21/pull/24/checks?check_run_id=14317258603. They
should be
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
GHA is failing on windows; is this related to this PR or something else?
@erikj - You did a round of
On Fri, 16 Jun 2023 20:52:13 GMT, Kevin Rushforth wrote:
> As a P4 enhancement, this doesn't meet the criteria for integration into JDK
> 21 during [Rampdown Phase
> 1](https://mail.openjdk.org/pipermail/jdk-dev/2023-June/007911.html). You
> could request late approval to get this enhancement
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
8307858: [REDO] JDK-8307194 Add make target for optionally building a complete
set of all JDK and hotspot libjvm static libraries
-
Commit messages:
- Backport 45414fc2dfa41cbbfc6de7fec15eb47f41cf8986
Changes: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk21/pull/26/files
Webrev:
On Tue, 13 Jun 2023 20:36:28 GMT, Anthony Scarpino
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I need a code review for moving the contents of the jdk.crypto.ec module into
> java.base. This moves the SunEC JCE Provider (Elliptic Curve) into
> java.base. EC has always been separate from the base module/pkg because
Hi,
I need a code review for moving the contents of the jdk.crypto.ec module into
java.base. This moves the SunEC JCE Provider (Elliptic Curve) into java.base.
EC has always been separate from the base module/pkg because of its dependence
on a native library. That library was removed in JDK
On Fri, 16 Jun 2023 11:14:10 GMT, Jaikiran Pai wrote:
>> Please review this change to use the boot JDK for building jtreg when
>> running on GitHub Actions.
>>
>> This is a best-effort follow-up change to
>> - #14448
>> which didn't have the desired results - the `Bad address` error does still
On Fri, 16 Jun 2023 11:14:10 GMT, Jaikiran Pai wrote:
>> Please review this change to use the boot JDK for building jtreg when
>> running on GitHub Actions.
>>
>> This is a best-effort follow-up change to
>> - #14448
>> which didn't have the desired results - the `Bad address` error does still
On Fri, 16 Jun 2023 06:05:16 GMT, Christian Stein wrote:
> Please review this change to use the boot JDK for building jtreg when running
> on GitHub Actions.
>
> This is a best-effort follow-up change to
> - #14448
> which didn't have the desired results - the `Bad address` error does still
>
On Fri, 16 Jun 2023 06:05:16 GMT, Christian Stein wrote:
> Please review this change to use the boot JDK for building jtreg when running
> on GitHub Actions.
>
> This is a best-effort follow-up change to
> - #14448
> which didn't have the desired results - the `Bad address` error does still
>
On Fri, 16 Jun 2023 06:05:16 GMT, Christian Stein wrote:
> Please review this change to use the boot JDK for building jtreg when running
> on GitHub Actions.
>
> This is a best-effort follow-up change to
> - #14448
> which didn't have the desired results - the `Bad address` error does still
>
On Fri, 16 Jun 2023 06:05:16 GMT, Christian Stein wrote:
> Please review this change to use the boot JDK for building jtreg when running
> on GitHub Actions.
>
> This is a best-effort follow-up change to
> - #14448
> which didn't have the desired results - the `Bad address` error does still
>
On Fri, 16 Jun 2023 11:14:10 GMT, Jaikiran Pai wrote:
>> Please review this change to use the boot JDK for building jtreg when
>> running on GitHub Actions.
>>
>> This is a best-effort follow-up change to
>> - #14448
>> which didn't have the desired results - the `Bad address` error does still
On Fri, 16 Jun 2023 11:14:10 GMT, Jaikiran Pai wrote:
> If that works, then perhaps we should just use that pinned version of
> `msys2/setup-msys2`, until we report and have this issue fixed in that
> package?
+1
-
PR Comment:
On Fri, 16 Jun 2023 06:05:16 GMT, Christian Stein wrote:
> Please review this change to use the boot JDK for building jtreg when running
> on GitHub Actions.
>
> This is a best-effort follow-up change to
> - #14448
> which didn't have the desired results - the `Bad address` error does still
>
On Fri, 16 Jun 2023 06:05:16 GMT, Christian Stein wrote:
> Please review this change to use the boot JDK for building jtreg when running
> on GitHub Actions.
>
> This is a best-effort follow-up change to
> - #14448
> which didn't have the desired results - the `Bad address` error does still
>
On Fri, 16 Jun 2023 06:05:16 GMT, Christian Stein wrote:
> Please review this change to use the boot JDK for building jtreg when running
> on GitHub Actions.
>
> This is a best-effort follow-up change to
> - #14448
> which didn't have the desired results - the `Bad address` error does still
>
On Fri, 16 Jun 2023 08:45:01 GMT, Aleksey Shipilev wrote:
> Wait, so why does it fix the bug? Is it a MSYS path conversion bug?
It does not fix the bug, it works around it. Something (in MSYS) failes to work
(calling `javac`) that used to work without problem until some week ago (new
version
On Fri, 16 Jun 2023 06:05:16 GMT, Christian Stein wrote:
> Please review this change to use the boot JDK for building jtreg when running
> on GitHub Actions.
>
> This is a best-effort follow-up change to
> - #14448
> which didn't have the desired results - the `Bad address` error does still
>
Please review this change to use the boot JDK for building jtreg when running
on GitHub Actions.
This is a best-effort follow-up change to
- #14448
which didn't have the desired results - the `Bad address` error does still
appear with using the pre-installed JDKs 11 and 17.
Tests using the
25 matches
Mail list logo
