Re: RFR: 8254054: Pre-submit testing using GitHub Actions should not use the deprecated set-env command

2020-10-06 Thread Erik Helin
On Tue, 6 Oct 2020 06:39:55 GMT, Robin Westberg wrote: > The `set-env` command was recently deprecated in favor of a different method > of setting environment variables, due to a > security vulnerability [1]. The vulnerability does not affect our usage of > GitHub Actions, but we should neverth

Re: RFR: 8245194: Unix domain socket channel implementation [v15]

2020-10-06 Thread Michael McMahon
> Continuing this review as a PR on github with the comments below > incorporated. I expect there will be a few more > iterations before integrating. > On 06/09/2020 19:47, Alan Bateman wrote: >> On 26/08/2020 15:24, Michael McMahon wrote: >>> >>> As I mentioned the other day, I wasn't able to use

Re: RFR: 8245194: Unix domain socket channel implementation [v16]

2020-10-06 Thread Michael McMahon
> Continuing this review as a PR on github with the comments below > incorporated. I expect there will be a few more > iterations before integrating. > On 06/09/2020 19:47, Alan Bateman wrote: >> On 26/08/2020 15:24, Michael McMahon wrote: >>> >>> As I mentioned the other day, I wasn't able to use

Re: RFR: 8254054: Pre-submit testing using GitHub Actions should not use the deprecated set-env command

2020-10-06 Thread Erik Joelsson
On Tue, 6 Oct 2020 06:39:55 GMT, Robin Westberg wrote: > The `set-env` command was recently deprecated in favor of a different method > of setting environment variables, due to a > security vulnerability [1]. The vulnerability does not affect our usage of > GitHub Actions, but we should neverth

Integrated: 8254054: Pre-submit testing using GitHub Actions should not use the deprecated set-env command

2020-10-06 Thread Robin Westberg
On Tue, 6 Oct 2020 06:39:55 GMT, Robin Westberg wrote: > The `set-env` command was recently deprecated in favor of a different method > of setting environment variables, due to a > security vulnerability [1]. The vulnerability does not affect our usage of > GitHub Actions, but we should neverth

Re: RFR: 8247536: Support for pre-generated java.lang.invoke classes in CDS static archive [v10]

2020-10-06 Thread Yumin Qi
> This patch is reorganized after 8252725, which is separated from this patch > to refactor jlink glugin code. The previous > webrev with hg can be found at: > http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~minqi/2020/8247536/webrev-05. With 8252725 > integrated, the > regeneration of holder classes is simply to c

Re: RFR: 8247536: Support for pre-generated java.lang.invoke classes in CDS static archive [v11]

2020-10-06 Thread Yumin Qi
> This patch is reorganized after 8252725, which is separated from this patch > to refactor jlink glugin code. The previous > webrev with hg can be found at: > http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~minqi/2020/8247536/webrev-05. With 8252725 > integrated, the > regeneration of holder classes is simply to c

Re: RFR: 8247536: Support for pre-generated java.lang.invoke classes in CDS static archive [v11]

2020-10-06 Thread Mandy Chung
On Tue, 6 Oct 2020 17:35:18 GMT, Yumin Qi wrote: >> This patch is reorganized after 8252725, which is separated from this patch >> to refactor jlink glugin code. The previous >> webrev with hg can be found at: >> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~minqi/2020/8247536/webrev-05. With 8252725 >> integra

Re: RFR: 8247536: Support for pre-generated java.lang.invoke classes in CDS static archive [v12]

2020-10-06 Thread Yumin Qi
> This patch is reorganized after 8252725, which is separated from this patch > to refactor jlink glugin code. The previous > webrev with hg can be found at: > http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~minqi/2020/8247536/webrev-05. With 8252725 > integrated, the > regeneration of holder classes is simply to c

RFR: 8254102: use ProcessHandle::pid instead of ManagementFactory::getRuntimeMXBean to get pid in tests

2020-10-06 Thread Igor Ignatyev
Hi all, could you please review this small cleanup which replaces `ManagementFactory.getRuntimeMXBean().getName().split("@")[0]` w/ `ProcessHandle.current().pid()` to get current process pid? Thanks, -- Igor - Commit messages: - update copyright - use ProcessHandle::pid instead o

Re: RFR: 8253757: Add LLVM-based backend for hsdis

2020-10-06 Thread Yasumasa Suenaga
On Fri, 2 Oct 2020 11:44:51 GMT, Magnus Ihse Bursie wrote: >> @navyxliu I've merged the sources into `src/utils/hsdis` and added support >> to build it in the Makefile. > > This is an interesting suggestion. There is a similar attempt at replacing > binutils with capstone in > https://bugs.open

Re: RFR: 8254102: use ProcessHandle::pid instead of ManagementFactory::getRuntimeMXBean to get pid in tests

2020-10-06 Thread Roger Riggs
On Tue, 6 Oct 2020 23:08:40 GMT, Igor Ignatyev wrote: > Hi all, > > could you please review this small cleanup which replaces > `ManagementFactory.getRuntimeMXBean().getName().split("@")[0]` w/ > `ProcessHandle.current().pid()` to get current > process pid? Thanks, > -- Igor All of these chan

Re: RFR: 8254102: use ProcessHandle::pid instead of ManagementFactory::getRuntimeMXBean to get pid in tests

2020-10-06 Thread Aleksey Shipilev
On Tue, 6 Oct 2020 23:08:40 GMT, Igor Ignatyev wrote: > Hi all, > > could you please review this small cleanup which replaces > `ManagementFactory.getRuntimeMXBean().getName().split("@")[0]` w/ > `ProcessHandle.current().pid()` to get current > process pid? Thanks, > -- Igor I think this is f

Re: RFR: 8254102: use ProcessHandle::pid instead of ManagementFactory::getRuntimeMXBean to get pid in tests

2020-10-06 Thread Aleksey Shipilev
On Wed, 7 Oct 2020 01:47:23 GMT, Roger Riggs wrote: >> Hi all, >> >> could you please review this small cleanup which replaces >> `ManagementFactory.getRuntimeMXBean().getName().split("@")[0]` w/ >> `ProcessHandle.current().pid()` to get current >> process pid? Thanks, >> -- Igor > > test/fail