On Tue, 27 Feb 2024 21:46:17 GMT, Magnus Ihse Bursie wrote:
>> Once [JDK-8017234](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8017234) has been
>> integrated, it is possible to do some cleanup. The goal of
>> [JDK-8017234](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8017234) was to not change
>> any
On Tue, 27 Feb 2024 21:46:17 GMT, Magnus Ihse Bursie wrote:
>> Once [JDK-8017234](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8017234) has been
>> integrated, it is possible to do some cleanup. The goal of
>> [JDK-8017234](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8017234) was to not change
>> any
On Fri, 23 Feb 2024 12:03:37 GMT, Bernhard Urban-Forster
wrote:
>> Instead of discussing removal of windows/aarch64 (although the general rule
>> in OpenJDK is that ports that are not maintained by anyone should be
>> removed); let's stick to the question here: do we need to export `das1()`
On Tue, 27 Feb 2024 16:11:34 GMT, Andrew Dinn wrote:
>> You can probably remove the entire function given it's an indirection to
>> `das` anyway. I remember using it for debugging during the first stages of
>> the Windows-AArch64 port but I've long forgotten about it.
>
> @luhenry @magicus
> Once [JDK-8017234](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8017234) has been
> integrated, it is possible to do some cleanup. The goal of
> [JDK-8017234](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8017234) was to not change
> any behavior, even if that behavior seemed odd.
>
> Now let's try to fix
