On Thu, Nov 9, 2017 at 8:06 PM, Paul Sandoz <paul.san...@oracle.com> wrote: > Hi Volker, > >> On 9 Nov 2017, at 01:01, Volker Simonis <volker.simo...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> Hi Paul, >> >> just some quick process-related questions. >> >> Is this intended to be targeted for jdk 10? >> > > Yes, that’s what we are aiming for. I am front loading reviews ahead of a > propose to target (which should hopefully happen soon) to make better use of > time given the shorter cycles, thus increasing the quality and giving heads > up to other developers like yourself who are responsible for other platforms. > > >> Is the current implementation already available in a separate >> repository and/or branch? I've read in the RFR for 8186046 that some >> parts are currently being refined in the amber repository. Or is the >> complete implementation already available there? >> > > A super set of functionality is present in the amber repo under the condy > branch. We pealed a sub-set of that off and created patches for the idk/hs > repo tracked in: > > Minimal ConstantDynamic support > https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8186046 > Tool support for ConstantDynamic > https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8186209 > > http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~psandoz/jdk10/JDK-8186046-minimal-condy-support-hs/webrev/ > > Minimal set of bootstrap methods for dynamic constants > https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8187742 > > http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~psandoz/jdk10/JDK-8187742-condy-bootstraps/webrev/ > > While these are under review they might diverge a little from the condy > branch in the amber repo but i will sync back up in batches. > > >> If I want to port this to ppc64, what's the best way to start and what >> do I need? Is it just the two webrevs for 8187742 and 8186046 on top >> of the jdk hs repo? Or is it a branch of the amber repo? >> > > Yes, and focus on the following applied to the jdk/hs repo: > > > http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~psandoz/jdk10/JDK-8186046-minimal-condy-support-hs/webrev/ > > There are tests in that patch that are currently targeted to run only on x86 > that would otherwise tickle failures on other platforms. > > >> You may know that there's currently a discussion going on about what >> is a JEP and what's the right way to implement and integrate a JEP >> into the mainline. The general idea is that only 'finished' JEPs will >> be targeted and integrated into the always feature complete main line. >> So is this and the review for 8186046 about the integration into the >> jdk repo (which shouldn't happen before the JEP is not targeted for >> jdk10) or is it just the review before the JEP can actually be >> targeted? This is important because there's not much time before the >> jdk10 repos will enter Rampdown phase 1 and we would still have to >> port this to ppc (and also ARM/SPARC) if it will be targeted for jdk >> 10. >> >> I don't want to question the merits and quality of the current >> implementation which I'm sure are great. For me as an external >> observer its just hard to oversee the current status of the >> implementation. >> > > I hear you, thanks for your patience. Is it a little clearer now? >
Thanks Paul! Things are much clearer now. I'll start looking at the changes required for ppc/s390. Regards, Volker > From my own perspective this is the first flight over the new release cycle > territory, the ride might be a little bumpy while we learn to pilot this > better :-) > > Paul.
