On Wed, 23 Sep 2026 01:56:04 GMT, Sergey Bylokhov <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> Maybe it will be better to include some variant of just "Windows_ALL" or >>> something like that? So it will not be necessary to update these checks for >>> future Windows versions? I do not think we will enable D3D for the basic >>> driver or on Intel. >> >> We have already 'OS_ALL' which is in fact 'WINDOWS_ALL' because the D3D code >> is only relevant on Windows. >> So why have both 'OS_ALL' and 'WINDOWS_ALL' ? > > OS_ALL is a combination of our flags. If a new OS is released we will need to > add a new flag that will be combined into OS_ALL. But we need something > different: if the blocked driver is marked as OS_ALL or something like that, > we should block it on all Windows every time. So maybe we should create > WINDOWS_ALL or KNOWN_OS/etc and use OS_ALL for all versions. Note in the > current code the "OS_UNKNOWN" blocks nothing. And overall current code looks > too complicated for the purpose. So what should WINDOWS_ALL be ? In those files from java.desktop/windows we are anyways running on Windows when this code is executed; so having both WINDOWS_ALL and OS_ALL is a bit strange. Having one of the two probably makes sense (means - the Windows versions we know about and handle in the code). ------------- PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/32011#discussion_r4185177496
