On Fri, 6 Jan 2023 21:37:35 GMT, Alexandre Iline wrote:
> Update JCov version to 3.0.14
Marked as reviewed by serb (Reviewer).
-
PR: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/11886
On Sat, 7 Jan 2023 01:08:48 GMT, Jesper Wilhelmsson
wrote:
> Forwardport JDK 20 -> JDK 21
This pull request has now been integrated.
Changeset: 5393dc9a
Author:Jesper Wilhelmsson
URL:
https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/commit/5393dc9a48064505f0b79b7059f87bec33c1c8fe
Stats: 54 lines
Forwardport JDK 20 -> JDK 21
-
Commit messages:
- Merge remote-tracking branch 'jdk20/master' into Merge_jdk20
- 8299705: JCov coverage runs depend on jdk_symbols
- 8299740: CaptureCallState is missing @Preview annotation
- 8299528: IR test: TestEor3AArch64.java fails on aarch64
On Fri, 6 Jan 2023 15:38:31 GMT, Alan Bateman wrote:
>>> The associated JBS issue has been dormant for 6+ years and this is a very
>>> intrusive change affecting many, many files. Has the resurrection of this
>>> project previously been discussed somewhere?
>>
>> Hi @dholmes-ora,
>>
>> The
> This PR adds a new lint warning category `this-escape`.
>
> It also adds `@SuppressWarnings` annotations as needed to the JDK itself to
> allow the JDK to continue to compile with `-Xlint:all`.
>
> A 'this' escape warning is generated for a constructor `A()` in a class `A`
> when the
> This is an enhancement of the test case in
> [JDK-8296754](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8296754), which tests
> against an archive created by the "boot JDK", which is usually set as the
> previous official JDK release when building the JDK repo.
>
> If it's able to acquire previous
On Fri, 6 Jan 2023 21:37:35 GMT, Alexandre Iline wrote:
> Update JCov version to 3.0.14
Marked as reviewed by erikj (Reviewer).
-
PR: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/11886
Update JCov version to 3.0.14
-
Commit messages:
- JDK-8299757: Update JCov version to 3.0.14
Changes: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/11886/files
Webrev: https://webrevs.openjdk.org/?repo=jdk=11886=00
Issue: https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8299757
Stats: 1 line in 1 file
> This is an enhancement of the test case in
> [JDK-8296754](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8296754), which tests
> against an archive created by the "boot JDK", which is usually set as the
> previous official JDK release when building the JDK repo.
>
> If it's able to acquire previous
On Fri, 6 Jan 2023 13:47:22 GMT, Erik Joelsson wrote:
>> Matias Saavedra Silva has updated the pull request with a new target base
>> due to a merge or a rebase. The incremental webrev excludes the unrelated
>> changes brought in by the merge/rebase. The pull request contains eight
>>
On Fri, 6 Jan 2023 18:02:25 GMT, Alexandre Iline wrote:
> Making JCov test runs not to depend on symbols artifact.
This pull request has now been integrated.
Changeset: 1f141bd7
Author:Alexandre Iline
URL:
On Fri, 6 Jan 2023 18:02:25 GMT, Alexandre Iline wrote:
> Making JCov test runs not to depend on symbols artifact.
Marked as reviewed by erikj (Reviewer).
-
PR: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk20/pull/89
Making JCov test runs not to depend on symbols artifact.
-
Commit messages:
- JDK-8299705: JCov coverage runs depend on jdk_symbols
Changes: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk20/pull/89/files
Webrev: https://webrevs.openjdk.org/?repo=jdk20=89=00
Issue:
On Thu, 5 Jan 2023 22:47:32 GMT, Matias Saavedra Silva
wrote:
>> This is an enhancement of the test case in
>> [JDK-8296754](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8296754), which tests
>> against an archive created by the "boot JDK", which is usually set as the
>> previous official JDK release
> This is an enhancement of the test case in
> [JDK-8296754](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8296754), which tests
> against an archive created by the "boot JDK", which is usually set as the
> previous official JDK release when building the JDK repo.
>
> If it's able to acquire previous
On Fri, 6 Jan 2023 15:38:31 GMT, Alan Bateman wrote:
>>> The associated JBS issue has been dormant for 6+ years and this is a very
>>> intrusive change affecting many, many files. Has the resurrection of this
>>> project previously been discussed somewhere?
>>
>> Hi @dholmes-ora,
>>
>> The
On Fri, 6 Jan 2023 14:49:16 GMT, Archie L. Cobbs wrote:
> Sounds reasonable... so I take it you would also be in favor of patching
> `make/modules` instead of adding `@SuppressWarnings` annotations
> everywhere... is that correct?
>
> If this is generally agreed as a better route then let me
On Fri, 6 Jan 2023 04:48:27 GMT, David Holmes wrote:
> The associated JBS issue has been dormant for 6+ years and this is a very
> intrusive change affecting many, many files. Has the resurrection of this
> project previously been discussed somewhere?
Hi @dholmes-ora,
The work to add this
On Thu, 5 Jan 2023 22:47:32 GMT, Matias Saavedra Silva
wrote:
>> This is an enhancement of the test case in
>> [JDK-8296754](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8296754), which tests
>> against an archive created by the "boot JDK", which is usually set as the
>> previous official JDK release
On Tue, 3 Jan 2023 09:39:59 GMT, Aleksey Shipilev wrote:
> This should help to speed up tests significantly. Currently, if we run "make
> test" with a subset of tests, JTReg would still read the entirety of test
> root to report on tests that were not run. Even with current suite of tests
>
20 matches
Mail list logo
