[jdk23] Integrated: 8333743: Change .jcheck/conf branches property to match valid branches

On Thu, 6 Jun 2024 18:24:50 GMT, Kevin Rushforth wrote: > Clean backport of `.jcheck/conf` change to jdk23. This pull request has now been integrated. Changeset: 31696a44 Author:Kevin Rushforth Committer: Iris Clark URL:

Re: [jdk23] RFR: 8333743: Change .jcheck/conf branches property to match valid branches

On Thu, 6 Jun 2024 18:24:50 GMT, Kevin Rushforth wrote: > Clean backport of `.jcheck/conf` change to jdk23. Marked as reviewed by erikj (Reviewer). - PR Review: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/19584#pullrequestreview-2103122924

Re: [jdk23] RFR: 8333743: Change .jcheck/conf branches property to match valid branches

On Thu, 6 Jun 2024 19:38:44 GMT, Kevin Rushforth wrote: > Test comment to check that Skara now prefixes the RFR email with the target > branch (if not master). It should work now. - PR Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/19584#issuecomment-2153295983

Re: RFR: 8333743: Change .jcheck/conf branches property to match valid branches

On Thu, 6 Jun 2024 18:24:50 GMT, Kevin Rushforth wrote: > Clean backport of `.jcheck/conf` change to jdk23. Test comment to check that Skara now prefixes the RFR email with the target branch (if not master). - PR Comment:

Re: RFR: 8333743: Change .jcheck/conf branches property to match valid branches

On Thu, 6 Jun 2024 18:24:50 GMT, Kevin Rushforth wrote: > Clean backport of `.jcheck/conf` change to jdk23. Marked as reviewed by iris (Reviewer). - PR Review: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/19584#pullrequestreview-2102953724

RFR: 8333743: Change .jcheck/conf branches property to match valid branches

Clean backport of `.jcheck/conf` change to jdk23. - Commit messages: - Backport 2a37764e7428d579a3080e62681f1c9c9f816c1e Changes: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/19584/files Webrev: https://webrevs.openjdk.org/?repo=jdk=19584=00 Issue:

Re: RFR: 8333477: Delete extra empty spaces in Makefiles

On Tue, 4 Jun 2024 07:47:46 GMT, SendaoYan wrote: > Hi all, > This PR several extra empty spaces and extra empty lines in several > Makefiles. It's trivial fix, no risk. > > Thanks. Changes requested by liach (Author). test/jdk/java/rmi/reliability/benchmark/bench/rmi/Makefile line 1: >

Integrated: 8333743: Change .jcheck/conf branches property to match valid branches

On Thu, 6 Jun 2024 17:10:16 GMT, Kevin Rushforth wrote: > Update the `branches` property in `.jcheck/conf` to allow branches, now that > we are using them for JDK stabilization. This will allow integrators to use > Skara to create new stabilization branches (we had to do it manually this >

Re: RFR: 8333743: Change .jcheck/conf branches property to match valid branches

On Thu, 6 Jun 2024 17:10:16 GMT, Kevin Rushforth wrote: > Update the `branches` property in `.jcheck/conf` to allow branches, now that > we are using them for JDK stabilization. This will allow integrators to use > Skara to create new stabilization branches (we had to do it manually this >

Re: RFR: 8333743: Change .jcheck/conf branches property to match valid branches

On Thu, 6 Jun 2024 17:10:16 GMT, Kevin Rushforth wrote: > Update the `branches` property in `.jcheck/conf` to allow branches, now that > we are using them for JDK stabilization. This will allow integrators to use > Skara to create new stabilization branches (we had to do it manually this >

RFR: 8333743: Change .jcheck/conf branches property to match valid branches

Update the `branches` property in `.jcheck/conf` to allow branches, now that we are using them for JDK stabilization. This will allow integrators to use Skara to create new stabilization branches (we had to do it manually this time). - Commit messages: - 8333743: Change

Integrated: 8330182: Start of release updates for JDK 24

On Mon, 15 Apr 2024 19:01:08 GMT, Joe Darcy wrote: > Get JDK 24 underway. This pull request has now been integrated. Changeset: 75dc2f85 Author:Joe Darcy Committer: Jesper Wilhelmsson URL: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/commit/75dc2f8518d0adea30f7065d6732b807c0220756 Stats: 2083

Re: Removing mercurial support for update-copyright-year script

I see no problem with removing Mercurial support. /Erik On 6/6/24 08:21, Sonia Zaldana Calles wrote: Adding @Thomas Stuefe  to the thread. On Thu, Jun 6, 2024 at 11:20 AM Sonia Zaldana Calles wrote: Hi folks, I'm working on JDK-8333685 [0]. I was

Re: RFR: 8311302: Allow for jlinking a custom runtime without packaged modules being present [v32]

On Thu, 6 Jun 2024 09:47:30 GMT, Severin Gehwolf wrote: >> Please review this patch which adds a jlink mode to the JDK which doesn't >> need the packaged modules being present. A.k.a run-time image based jlink. >> Fundamentally this patch adds an option to use `jlink` even though your JDK >>

Re: Removing mercurial support for update-copyright-year script

Adding @Thomas Stuefe to the thread. On Thu, Jun 6, 2024 at 11:20 AM Sonia Zaldana Calles wrote: > Hi folks, > > I'm working on JDK-8333685 [0]. > > I was wondering if there would be any objections to removing mercurial > support from this script along with the few other improvements suggested

Removing mercurial support for update-copyright-year script

Hi folks, I'm working on JDK-8333685 [0]. I was wondering if there would be any objections to removing mercurial support from this script along with the few other improvements suggested in the issue above. Looking forward to your thoughts. Cheers, Sonia [0]

Re: RFR: 8293980: Resolve CONSTANT_FieldRef at CDS dump time [v5]

On Mon, 3 Jun 2024 21:23:59 GMT, Ioi Lam wrote: >> ### Overview >> >> This PR archives `CONSTANT_FieldRef` entries in the _resolved_ state when >> it's safe to do so. >> >> I.e., when a `CONSTANT_FieldRef` constant pool entry in class `A` refers to >> a *non-static* field `B.F`, >> - `B` is

Re: RFR: 8293980: Resolve CONSTANT_FieldRef at CDS dump time [v3]

On Mon, 3 Jun 2024 19:13:54 GMT, Ioi Lam wrote: >> This makes sense. I will try to prototype it in the Leyden repo and then >> update this PR. > > I tried skipping the `methodHandle` parameter to > `InterpreterRuntime::resolve_get_put` but it's more complicated than I > thought. > > 1. The

RFR: 8330586: GHA: Drop additional gcc/glibc packages installation for x86_32

We have added these long time ago with [JDK-8308086](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8308086) and [JDK-8293165](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8293165) to stabilize x86_32 sysroot a bit. We never backported those below JDK 21. - Commit messages: - Merge branch 'master'

Re: RFR: 8311302: Allow for jlinking a custom runtime without packaged modules being present [v32]

On Thu, 6 Jun 2024 10:42:20 GMT, Alan Bateman wrote: >> Severin Gehwolf has updated the pull request incrementally with one >> additional commit since the last revision: >> >> Fix default description of keep-packaged-modules > > I've read through all src changes. I think Sundar is looking at

Re: RFR: 8311302: Allow for jlinking a custom runtime without packaged modules being present [v32]

On Thu, 6 Jun 2024 10:42:20 GMT, Alan Bateman wrote: >> Severin Gehwolf has updated the pull request incrementally with one >> additional commit since the last revision: >> >> Fix default description of keep-packaged-modules > > I've read through all src changes. I think Sundar is looking at

Re: RFR: 8311302: Allow for jlinking a custom runtime without packaged modules being present [v32]

On Thu, 6 Jun 2024 09:47:30 GMT, Severin Gehwolf wrote: >> Please review this patch which adds a jlink mode to the JDK which doesn't >> need the packaged modules being present. A.k.a run-time image based jlink. >> Fundamentally this patch adds an option to use `jlink` even though your JDK >>

Re: RFR: 8311302: Allow for jlinking a custom runtime without packaged modules being present [v32]

On Thu, 6 Jun 2024 09:47:30 GMT, Severin Gehwolf wrote: >> Please review this patch which adds a jlink mode to the JDK which doesn't >> need the packaged modules being present. A.k.a run-time image based jlink. >> Fundamentally this patch adds an option to use `jlink` even though your JDK >>

Re: RFR: 8311302: Allow for jlinking a custom runtime without packaged modules being present [v31]

On Thu, 6 Jun 2024 09:33:43 GMT, Magnus Ihse Bursie wrote: > As Erik says. You need to add something like: `DEFAULT_DESC: [the inverse of > --enable-runtime-link-image]`. https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/pull/14787/commits/7a8f839e55c5109deeb5022d2338b37387c95c85 does that. Sorry it clashed

Re: RFR: 8311302: Allow for jlinking a custom runtime without packaged modules being present [v32]

> Please review this patch which adds a jlink mode to the JDK which doesn't > need the packaged modules being present. A.k.a run-time image based jlink. > Fundamentally this patch adds an option to use `jlink` even though your JDK > install might not come with the packaged modules (directory

Re: RFR: 8311302: Allow for jlinking a custom runtime without packaged modules being present [v31]

On Wed, 5 Jun 2024 17:31:44 GMT, Severin Gehwolf wrote: >> Please review this patch which adds a jlink mode to the JDK which doesn't >> need the packaged modules being present. A.k.a run-time image based jlink. >> Fundamentally this patch adds an option to use `jlink` even though your JDK >>

Re: RFR: 8312425: [vectorapi] AArch64: Optimize vector math operations with SLEEF [v6]

On Wed, 8 May 2024 17:41:23 GMT, Hamlin Li wrote: >> Hi, >> Can you help to review the patch? >> This pr is based on previous work and discussion in [pr >> 16234](https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/pull/16234), [pr >> 18294](https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/pull/18294). >> >> Compared with previous