Re: [jdk19] RFR: 8290417: CDS cannot archive lamda proxy with useImplMethodHandle [v2]

2022-07-17 Thread Ioi Lam
> Since the impact of this bug can be big, and the fix is simple and low risk > (just avoids doing optimizations), I'd like to put this into JDK 19 before > RDP2 (Jul 21). > > CDS cannot handle Lambda proxy classes that are generated in the > useImplMethodHandle mode. This could happen with

Re: [jdk19] RFR: 8290417: CDS cannot archive lamda proxy with useImplMethodHandle

2022-07-17 Thread David Holmes
On Mon, 18 Jul 2022 03:15:02 GMT, Ioi Lam wrote: > Since the impact of this bug can be big, and the fix is simple and low risk > (just avoids doing optimizations), I'd like to put this into JDK 19 before > RDP2 (Jul 21). > > CDS cannot handle Lambda proxy classes that are generated in the >

[jdk19] RFR: 8290417: CDS cannot archive lamda proxy with useImplMethodHandle

2022-07-17 Thread Ioi Lam
Since the impact of this bug can be big, and the fix is simple and low risk (just avoids doing optimizations), I'd like to put this into JDK 19 before RDP2 (Jul 21). CDS cannot handle Lambda proxy classes that are generated in the useImplMethodHandle mode. This could happen with classfiles

[jdk19] RFR: 8278274: Update nroff pages in JDK 19 before RC

2022-07-17 Thread David Holmes
Please review these changes to the nroff manpage files so that they match their markdown sources that Oracle maintains. All pages at a minimum have 19-ea replaced with 19, and copyright set to 2022 if needed. Additionally: The Java manpage was missing updates from: -

Integrated: Merge jdk19

2022-07-17 Thread Jesper Wilhelmsson
On Sat, 16 Jul 2022 12:26:23 GMT, Jesper Wilhelmsson wrote: > Forwardport JDK 19 -> JDK 20 This pull request has now been integrated. Changeset: 522b6574 Author:Jesper Wilhelmsson URL: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/commit/522b65743ca10fcba0a27d25b8fa1131e228 Stats: 68 lines

Re: RFR: 8288933: Improve the implementation of Double/Float.isInfinite

2022-07-17 Thread Claes Redestad
On Thu, 14 Jul 2022 05:17:09 GMT, Joe Darcy wrote: > @cl4es, what set of platforms do we usually consider for evaluating > performance changes like A mix of x86 and aarch64 systems, some old, some new. We could run the microbenchmark on our internal performance system to verify the reported