Cross-compilation of OpenJDK Zero with clang

2020-12-17 Thread Andy Nisbet
Hi, I am in the process of porting OpenJDK to a new architecture, at the current moment in time we only have clang/LLVM cross compilation tools, and GCC/binutils is still a year or so away. Could anyone offer any pointers to documentation/hints, and/or outline what is necessary to get cross compila

Re: [jdk16] RFR: JDK-8247994: Localize javadoc search [v3]

2020-12-17 Thread Jonathan Gibbons
> This is for JDK16, as a precursor to fixing JDK-8258002. > > While it is good to be using localized strings in the generated output, the > significance for JDK-8258002 is that the strings are now obtained from a > resource file, and not hardcoded in JavaScript file itself. > > The source file

Re: [jdk16] RFR: JDK-8247994: Localize javadoc search [v3]

2020-12-17 Thread Hannes Wallnöfer
On Thu, 17 Dec 2020 16:39:17 GMT, Jonathan Gibbons wrote: >> This is for JDK16, as a precursor to fixing JDK-8258002. >> >> While it is good to be using localized strings in the generated output, the >> significance for JDK-8258002 is that the strings are now obtained from a >> resource file,

Re: [jdk16] RFR: JDK-8247994: Localize javadoc search [v4]

2020-12-17 Thread Jonathan Gibbons
> This is for JDK16, as a precursor to fixing JDK-8258002. > > While it is good to be using localized strings in the generated output, the > significance for JDK-8258002 is that the strings are now obtained from a > resource file, and not hardcoded in JavaScript file itself. > > The source file

Re: [jdk16] RFR: JDK-8247994: Localize javadoc search [v4]

2020-12-17 Thread Hannes Wallnöfer
On Thu, 17 Dec 2020 17:10:10 GMT, Jonathan Gibbons wrote: >> This is for JDK16, as a precursor to fixing JDK-8258002. >> >> While it is good to be using localized strings in the generated output, the >> significance for JDK-8258002 is that the strings are now obtained from a >> resource file,

[jdk16] Integrated: JDK-8247994: Localize javadoc search

2020-12-17 Thread Jonathan Gibbons
On Sun, 13 Dec 2020 00:19:59 GMT, Jonathan Gibbons wrote: > This is for JDK16, as a precursor to fixing JDK-8258002. > > While it is good to be using localized strings in the generated output, the > significance for JDK-8258002 is that the strings are now obtained from a > resource file, and n

Integrated: Merge jdk16

2020-12-17 Thread Jesper Wilhelmsson
Forwardport JDK 16 -> JDK 17 - Commit messages: - Merge - 8247994: Localize javadoc search - 8258515: javac should issue an error if an annotation is nested in a local class or interface - 8258225: compiler/c2/cr6340864/TestIntVect.java runs faster in interpreter - 8258293: tool

Integrated: Merge jdk16

2020-12-17 Thread Jesper Wilhelmsson
On Thu, 17 Dec 2020 20:38:45 GMT, Jesper Wilhelmsson wrote: > Forwardport JDK 16 -> JDK 17 This pull request has now been integrated. Changeset: f15528eb Author:Jesper Wilhelmsson URL: https://git.openjdk.java.net/jdk/commit/f15528eb Stats: 773 lines in 63 files changed: 449 ins

Re: RFR: 8247957: remove doclint support for HTML 4 [v4]

2020-12-17 Thread Yoshiki Sato
> HTML4 is no longer supported in javadoc. > > doclint needs to drop HTML4 support as well. > The changes consist of: > * Removing jdk.javadoc.internal.doclint.HtmlVersion and its references. > * Sorting out supported tags and attributes in HTML5 (including fix incorrect > permission of valign in

Re: RFR: 8247957: remove doclint support for HTML 4 [v5]

2020-12-17 Thread Yoshiki Sato
> HTML4 is no longer supported in javadoc. > > doclint needs to drop HTML4 support as well. > The changes consist of: > * Removing jdk.javadoc.internal.doclint.HtmlVersion and its references. > * Sorting out supported tags and attributes in HTML5 (including fix incorrect > permission of valign in

Re: RFR: 8247957: remove doclint support for HTML 4 [v3]

2020-12-17 Thread Yoshiki Sato
On Thu, 17 Dec 2020 04:58:21 GMT, Jonathan Gibbons wrote: >> Yoshiki Sato has refreshed the contents of this pull request, and previous >> commits have been removed. The incremental views will show differences >> compared to the previous content of the PR. The pull request contains one >> new