On Sat, 1 Apr 2023 18:08:44 GMT, Joe Darcy wrote:
> This PR is a redo of JDK-8302801: Remove fdlibm C sources. The problem with
> JDK-8302801 was that it neglected (mea culpa) to include a Java
> implementation of IEEEremainder before the FDLIBM C implementation was
> deleted. Such an implemen
On Sat, 1 Apr 2023 18:08:44 GMT, Joe Darcy wrote:
> This PR is a redo of JDK-8302801: Remove fdlibm C sources. The problem with
> JDK-8302801 was that it neglected (mea culpa) to include a Java
> implementation of IEEEremainder before the FDLIBM C implementation was
> deleted. Such an implemen
On Sat, 1 Apr 2023 18:08:44 GMT, Joe Darcy wrote:
> This PR is a redo of JDK-8302801: Remove fdlibm C sources. The problem with
> JDK-8302801 was that it neglected (mea culpa) to include a Java
> implementation of IEEEremainder before the FDLIBM C implementation was
> deleted. Such an implemen
On Sat, 1 Apr 2023 18:08:44 GMT, Joe Darcy wrote:
> This PR is a redo of JDK-8302801: Remove fdlibm C sources. The problem with
> JDK-8302801 was that it neglected (mea culpa) to include a Java
> implementation of IEEEremainder before the FDLIBM C implementation was
> deleted. Such an implemen
On Sat, 1 Apr 2023 18:08:44 GMT, Joe Darcy wrote:
> This PR is a redo of JDK-8302801: Remove fdlibm C sources. The problem with
> JDK-8302801 was that it neglected (mea culpa) to include a Java
> implementation of IEEEremainder before the FDLIBM C implementation was
> deleted. Such an implemen
On Sat, 1 Apr 2023 18:08:44 GMT, Joe Darcy wrote:
> This PR is a redo of JDK-8302801: Remove fdlibm C sources. The problem with
> JDK-8302801 was that it neglected (mea culpa) to include a Java
> implementation of IEEEremainder before the FDLIBM C implementation was
> deleted. Such an implemen
This PR is a redo of JDK-8302801: Remove fdlibm C sources. The problem with
JDK-8302801 was that it neglected (mea culpa) to include a Java implementation
of IEEEremainder before the FDLIBM C implementation was deleted. Such an
implementation has been successfully provided under JDK-8304028: Por
On Sun, 2 Apr 2023 07:24:24 GMT, Alan Bateman wrote:
> I assume at least tier1-4 has been run, in which case this looks good (same
> as previous PR).
Right; tier 1 - 4 job was successful other than an unrelated time-out.
Previously, with the initial removal attempt there were many failures in
