On Mon, 1 May 2023 16:48:30 GMT, Jorn Vernee <jver...@openjdk.org> wrote:

>> This patch adds a dedicated jtreg property to check which CABI is being used 
>> by the JDK, which can be used both to check whether the foreign linker is 
>> supported, and whether the fallback linker is being used. (and, possibly it 
>> can also be use to check for a particular ABI in case we want to add ABI 
>> specific tests).
>> 
>> Checking whether the foreign linker is supported currently requires using an 
>> unwieldy expression that checks if we are running on a platform that has a 
>> foreign linker port. Checking for the fallback linker currently uses 
>> `vm.flavor != "zero"` which is not always correct, since the fallback linker 
>> can also be used on other platforms which are not `zero`.
>> 
>> To initialize the property, VMProps directly reads 
>> `jdk.internal.foreig.CABI::current()`. Since this class is in an internal 
>> package, `--add-exports` flags are added as javac flags and VM flags for the 
>> extra prop definitions class.
>
> Jorn Vernee has updated the pull request with a new target base due to a 
> merge or a rebase. The pull request now contains 46 commits:
> 
>  - UNKNOWN -> UNSUPPORTED + fix TestLinker on FALLBACK
>  - Merge branch 'master' into VMProps
>  - Merge branch 'master' into VMProps
>  - use only jdk.CABI property
>  - use extra props to check for linker
>  - Add fallbackLinker vmprop
>  - Merge pull request #3 from JornVernee/IsForeignLinkerSupported
>    
>    rename has_port
>  - rename has_port
>  - Merge pull request #2 from JornVernee/WSL_BB
>    
>    account for missing functional in WSL in TestByteBuffer
>  - account for missing mincore on WSL in TestByteBuffer
>  - ... and 36 more: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/compare/7d07d195...272478b6

test/jdk/java/foreign/SafeFunctionAccessTest.java line 27:

> 25:  * @test
> 26:  * @enablePreview
> 27:  * @requires jdk.CABI != "UNSUPPORTED"

what about the name `jdk.native.abi` ?

-------------

PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/13429#discussion_r1182359992

Reply via email to