RFR (L, tedious again, sorry) 8189610: Reconcile jvm.h and all jvm_md.h between java.base and hotspot
David Holmes
david.holmes at oracle.com
Sat Oct 28 07:50:27 UTC 2017
Hi Coleen,
I've commented on the file location in response to Mandy's email.
The only issue I'm still concerned about is the JVM_MAXPATHLEN issue. I
think it is a bug to define a JVM_MAXPATHLEN that is bigger than the
platform MAXPATHLEN. I also would not want to see any change in
behaviour because of this - so AIX and Solaris should not get a
different JVM_MAXPATHLEN due to this refactoring change. So yes I think
this needs to be ifdef'd for Linux and reluctantly (because it was a
copy error) for OSX/BSD as well.
Thanks,
David
On 28/10/2017 12:08 AM, coleen.phillimore at oracle.com wrote:
>
>
> On 10/27/17 9:37 AM, David Holmes wrote:
>> On 27/10/2017 10:13 PM, coleen.phillimore at oracle.com wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 10/27/17 3:23 AM, David Holmes wrote:
>>>> Hi Coleen,
>>>>
>>>> Thanks for tackling this.
>>>>
>>>>> Summary: removed hotspot version of jvm*h and jni*h files
>>>>
>>>> Can you update the bug synopsis to show it covers both sets of files
>>>> please.
>>>>
>>>> I hate to start with this (and it took me quite a while to realize
>>>> it) but as Mandy pointed out jvm.h is not an exported interface from
>>>> the JDK to the outside world (so not subject to CSR review), but is
>>>> a private interface between the JVM and the JDK libraries. So I
>>>> think really jvm.h belongs in the hotspot sources where it was,
>>>> while jni.h belongs in the exported JDK sources. In which case the
>>>> bulk of your changes to the hotspot files would not be needed - sorry.
>>>
>>> Maybe someone can make that decision and change at a later date. The
>>> point of this change is that there is now only one of these files
>>> that is shared. I don't think jvm.h and the jvm_md.h belong on the
>>> hotspot sources for the jdk to find them in some random prims and os
>>> dependent directories.
>>
>> The one file that is needed is a hotspot file - jvm.h defines the
>> interface that hotspot exports via jvm.cpp.
>>
>> If you leave jvm.h in hotspot/prims then a very large chunk of your
>> boilerplate changes are not needed. The JDK code doesn't care what the
>> name of the directory is - whatever it is just gets added as a -I
>> directive (the JDK code will include "jvm.h" not "prims/jvm.h" the way
>> hotspot sources do.
>>
>> This isn't something we want to change back or move again later.
>> Whatever we do now we live with.
>
> I think it belongs with jni.h and I think the core libraries group would
> agree. It seems more natural there than buried in the hotspot prims
> directory. I guess this is on hold while we have this debate. Sigh.
>
> Actually with -I directives, changing to jvm.h from prims/jvm.h would
> still work. Maybe we should change the name to jvm.hpp since it's
> jvm.cpp though? Or maybe just have two divergent copies and close this
> as WNF.
>
>>
>>> I'm happy to withdraw the CSR. We generally use the CSR process to
>>> add and remove JVM_ interfaces even though they're a private
>>> interface in case some other JVM/JDK combination relies on them. The
>>> changes to these files are very minor though and not likely to cause
>>> any even theoretical incompatibility, so I'll withdraw it.
>>>>
>>>> Moving on ...
>>>>
>>>> First to address the initial comments/query you had:
>>>>
>>>>> The JDK windows jni_md.h file defined jint as long and the hotspot
>>>>> windows jni_x86.h as int. I had to choose the jdk version since
>>>>> it's the
>>>>> public version, so there are changes to the hotspot files for this.
>>>>
>>>> On Windows int and long are always the same as it uses ILP32 or
>>>> LLP64 (not LP64 like *nix platforms). So either choice should be
>>>> fine. That said there are some odd casting issues I comment on
>>>> below. Does the VS compiler complain about mixing int and long in
>>>> expressions?
>>>
>>> Yes, it does even though int and long are the same representation.
>>
>> And what an absolute mess that makes. :(
>>
>>>>
>>>>> Generally I changed the code to use 'int' rather than 'jint' where the
>>>>> surrounding API didn't insist on consistently using java types. We
>>>>> should mostly be using C++ types within hotspot except in
>>>>> interfaces to
>>>>> native/JNI code.
>>>>
>>>> I think you pulled too hard on a few threads here and things are
>>>> starting to unravel. There are numerous cases I refer to below where
>>>> either the cast seems unnecessary/inappropriate or else highlights a
>>>> bunch of additional changes that also need to be made. The fan out
>>>> from this could be horrendous. Unless you actually get some kind of
>>>> error - and I'd like to understand the details of those - I would
>>>> not suggest making these changes as part of this work.
>>>
>>> I didn't make any change unless there was was an error. I have 100
>>> failed JPRT jobs to confirm! I eventually got a Windows system to
>>> compile and test this on. Actually some of the changes came out
>>> better. Cases where we use jint as a bool simply turned to int. We
>>> do not have an overload for bool for cmpxchg.
>>
>> That's unfortunate - ditto for OrderAccess.
>>
>>>>
>>>> Looking through I have a quite a few queries/comments - apologies in
>>>> advance as I know how tedious this is:
>>>>
>>>> make/hotspot/lib/CompileLibjsig.gmk
>>>> src/java.base/solaris/native/libjsig/jsig.c
>>>>
>>>> Took a while to figure out why the include was needed. :) As a
>>>> follow up I suggest just deleting the -I include directive, delete
>>>> the Solaris-only definition of JSIG_VERSION_1_4_1, and delete
>>>> everything to do with JVM_get_libjsig_version. It is all obsolete.
>>>
>>> Can I patch up jsig in a separate RFE? I don't remember why this
>>> broke so I simply moved JSIG #define. Is jsig obsolete? Removing
>>> JVM_* definitions generally requires a CSR.
>>
>> I did say "As a follow up". jsig is not obsolete but the jsig
>> versioning code, only used by Solaris, is.
>>
>>>>
>>>> ---
>>>>
>>>> src/hotspot/cpu/arm/interp_masm_arm.cpp
>>>>
>>>> Why did you need to add the jvm.h include?
>>>>
>>>
>>> tbz(Raccess_flags, JVM_ACC_SYNCHRONIZED_BIT, unlocked);
>>
>> Okay. I'm not going to try and figure out how this code found this
>> before.
>>
>>>> ---
>>>>
>>>> src/hotspot/os/windows/os_windows.cpp.
>>>>
>>>> The type of process_exiting should be uint to match the DWORD of
>>>> GetCurrentThreadID. Then you should need any casts. Also you missed
>>>> this jint cast:
>>>>
>>>> 3796 process_exiting != (jint)GetCurrentThreadId()) {
>>>
>>> Yes, that's better to change process_exiting to a DWORD. It needs a
>>> DWORD cast to 0 in the cmpxchg.
>>>
>>> Atomic::cmpxchg(GetCurrentThreadId(), &process_exiting,
>>> (DWORD)0);
>>>
>>> These templates are picky.
>>
>> Yes - their inability to deal with literals is extremely frustrating.
>>
>>>>
>>>> ---
>>>>
>>>> src/hotspot/share/c1/c1_Canonicalizer.hpp
>>>>
>>>> 43 #ifdef _WINDOWS
>>>> 44 // jint is defined as long in jni_md.h, so convert from int
>>>> to jint
>>>> 45 void set_constant(int x) {
>>>> set_constant((jint)x); }
>>>> 46 #endif
>>>>
>>>> Why is this necessary? int and long are the same on Windows. The
>>>> whole point is that jint hides the underlying type, so where does
>>>> this go wrong?
>>>
>>> No, they are not the same types even though they have the same
>>> representation!
>>
>> This is truly unfortunate.
>>
>>>>
>>>> ---
>>>>
>>>> src/hotspot/share/c1/c1_LinearScan.cpp
>>>>
>>>> ConstantIntValue((jint)0);
>>>>
>>>> why is this cast needed? what causes the ambiguity? (If this was a
>>>> template I'd understand ;-) ). Also didn't you change that
>>>> constructor to take an int anyway - not that I think it should - see
>>>> below.
>>>
>>> Yes, it caused an ambiguity. 0 matches 'int' but it doesn't match
>>> 'long' better than any pointer type. So this cast is needed.
>>
>> But you changed the constructor to take an int!
>>
>> class ConstantIntValue: public ScopeValue {
>> private:
>> - jint _value;
>> + int _value;
>> public:
>> - ConstantIntValue(jint value) { _value = value; }
>> + ConstantIntValue(int value) { _value = value; }
>>
>>
>
> Okay I removed this cast.
>
>>>> ---
>>>>
>>>> src/hotspot/share/ci/ciReplay.cpp
>>>>
>>>> 793 jint* dims = NEW_RESOURCE_ARRAY(jint, rank);
>>>>
>>>> why should this be jint?
>>>
>>> To avoid a cast from int* to jint* in the line below:
>>>
>>> value = kelem->multi_allocate(rank, dims, CHECK);
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> ---
>>>>
>>>> src/hotspot/share/classfile/altHashing.cpp
>>>>
>>>> Okay this looks more consistent with jint.
>>>
>>> Yes. I translated this from some native code iirc.
>>>>
>>>> ---
>>>>
>>>> src/hotspot/share/code/debugInfo.hpp
>>>>
>>>> These changes seem wrong. We have:
>>>>
>>>> ConstantLongValue(jlong value)
>>>> ConstantDoubleValue(jdouble value)
>>>>
>>>> so we should have:
>>>>
>>>> ConstantIntValue(jint value)
>>>
>>> Again, there are multiple call sites with '0', which match int
>>> trivially but are confused with long. It's less consistent I agree
>>> but better to not cast all the call sites.
>>
>> This is really making a mess of the APIs - they should be a jint but
>> we declare them int because of a 0 casting problem. Can't we just use 0L?
>
> There aren't that many casts. You're right, that would have been better
> in some places.
>
>>>>
>>>> ---
>>>>
>>>> src/hotspot/share/code/relocInfo.cpp
>>>>
>>>> Change seems unnecessary - int32_t is fine
>>>>
>>>
>>> No, int32_t doesn't match the calls below it. They all assume _lo
>>> and _hi are jint.
>>>> ---
>>>>
>>>> src/hotspot/share/compiler/compileBroker.cpp
>>>> src/hotspot/share/compiler/compileBroker.hpp
>>>>
>>>> I see a complete mix of int and jint in this class, so why make the
>>>> one change you did ??
>>>
>>> This is another case of using jint as a flag with cmpxchg. The
>>> templates for cmpxchg want the types to match and 0 and 1 are
>>> essentially 'int'. This is a lot cleaner this way.
>>
>> <sigh>
>>
>>>>
>>>> ---
>>>>
>>>> src/hotspot/share/jvmci/jvmciCompilerToVM.cpp
>>>>
>>>> 1700 tty->write((char*) start, MIN2(length, (jint)O_BUFLEN));
>>>>
>>>> why did you need to add the jint cast? It's used without any cast on
>>>> the next two lines:
>>>>
>>>> 1701 length -= O_BUFLEN;
>>>> 1702 offset += O_BUFLEN;
>>>>
>>>
>>> There's a conversion from O_BUFLEN from int to long in 1701 and
>>> 1702. MIN2 is a template that wants the types to match exactly.
>>
>> $%^%$! templates!
>>
>>>> ??
>>>>
>>>> ---
>>>>
>>>> src/hotspot/share/jvmci/jvmciRuntime.cpp
>>>>
>>>> Looking around this code it seems very confused about types - eg the
>>>> previous function is declared jboolean yet returns a jint on one
>>>> path! It isn't clear to me if the return type is what should be
>>>> changed or the parameter type? I would just leave this alone.
>>>
>>> I can't leave it alone because it doesn't compile that way. This was
>>> the minimal change and yea, does look a bit inconsistent.
>>>>
>>>> ---
>>>>
>>>> src/hotspot/share/opto/mulnode.cpp
>>>>
>>>> Okay TypeInt has jint parts, so the remaining int32_t declarations
>>>> (A, B, C, D) should also be jint.
>>>
>>> Yes. c2 uses jint types.
>>>>
>>>> ---
>>>>
>>>> src/hotspot/share/opto/parse3.cpp
>>>>
>>>> I agree with the changes you made, but then:
>>>>
>>>> 419 jint dim_con = find_int_con(length[j], -1);
>>>>
>>>> should also be changed.
>>>>
>>>> And obviously MultiArrayExpandLimit should be defined as int not intx!
>>>
>>> Everything in globals.hpp is intx. That's a thread that I don't want
>>> to pull on!
>>
>> We still have that limitation? <double sigh>
>>>
>>> Changed dim_con to int.
>>>>
>>>> ---
>>>>
>>>> src/hotspot/share/opto/phaseX.cpp
>>>>
>>>> I can see that intcon(jint i) is consistent with longcon(jlong l),
>>>> but the use of "i" in the code is more consistent with int than jint.
>>>
>>> huh? really?
>>>>
>>>> ---
>>>>
>>>> src/hotspot/share/opto/type.cpp
>>>>
>>>> 1505 int TypeInt::hash(void) const {
>>>> 1506 return java_add(java_add(_lo, _hi), java_add((jint)_widen,
>>>> (jint)Type::Int));
>>>> 1507 }
>>>>
>>>> I can see that the (jint) casts you added make sense, but then the
>>>> whole function should be returning jint not int. Ditto the other
>>>> hash functions.
>>>
>>> I'm not messing with this, this is the minimal in type fixing that
>>> I'm going to do here.
>>
>> <sigh>
>>
>>>>
>>>> ---
>>>>
>>>> src/hotspot/share/prims/jni.cpp
>>>>
>>>> I think vm_created should be a bool. In fact all the fields you
>>>> changed are logically bools - do Atomics work for bool now?
>>>
>>> No, they do not. I had thought bool would be better originally too.
>>>>
>>>> ---
>>>>
>>>> src/hotspot/share/prims/jvm.cpp
>>>>
>>>> is_attachable is the terminology used in the JDK code.
>>>
>>> Well the JDK version had is_attach_supported() as the flag name so I
>>> used that in this one place.
>>>>
>>>> ---
>>>>
>>>> src/hotspot/share/prims/jvmtiEnvBase.cpp
>>>> src/hotspot/share/prims/jvmtiImpl.cpp
>>>>
>>>> Are you making parameters consistent with the fields they initialize?
>>>
>>> They're consistent with the declarations now.
>>>>
>>>> ---
>>>>
>>>> src/hotspot/share/prims/jvmtiTagMap.cpp
>>>>
>>>> There is a mix of int and jint for slot in this code. You fixed
>>>> some, but this remains:
>>>>
>>>> 2440 inline bool CallbackInvoker::report_stack_ref_root(jlong
>>>> thread_tag,
>>>> 2441 jlong tid,
>>>> 2442 jint depth,
>>>> 2443 jmethodID method,
>>>> 2444 jlocation bci,
>>>> 2445 jint slot,
>>>
>>> Right for consistency with the declarations.
>>>>
>>>> ---
>>>>
>>>> src/hotspot/share/runtime/perfData.cpp
>>>>
>>>> Callers pass both jint and int, so param type seems arbitrary.
>>>
>>> They are, but importantly they match the declarations.
>>>>
>>>> ---
>>>>
>>>> src/hotspot/share/runtime/perfMemory.cpp
>>>> src/hotspot/share/runtime/perfMemory.hpp
>>>>
>>>> PerfMemory::_initialized should ideally be a bool - can OrderAccess
>>>> handle that now?
>>>
>>> Nope.
>>>>
>>>> ---
>>>>
>>>> src/java.base/share/native/include/jvm.h
>>>>
>>>> Not clear why the jio functions are not also JNICALL ?
>>>
>>> They are now. The JDK version didn't have JNICALL. JVM needs
>>> JNICALL. I can't tell you why JDK didn't need JNICALL linkage.
>>
>> ?? JVM currently does not have JNICALL. But they are declared as
>> "extern C".
>
> This was a compilation error on Windows with JDK. Maybe the C code in
> the JDK doesn't complain about linkage differences. I'll have to go
> back and figure this out then.
>>
>>>>
>>>> ---
>>>>
>>>> src/java.base/unix/native/include/jni_md.h
>>>>
>>>> There is no need to special case ARM. The differences in the
>>>> existing code were for LTO support and that is now irrelevant.
>>>
>>> See discussion with Magnus. We still build ARM for jdk10/hs so I
>>> needed this conditional or of course I wouldn't have added it. We
>>> can remove it with LTO support.
>>
>> Those builds are gone - this is obsolete. But yes all LTO can be
>> removed later if you wish. Just trying to simplify things now.
>>
>>>>
>>>> ---
>>>>
>>>> src/java.base/unix/native/include/jvm_md.h
>>>>
>>>> I know you've just copied this across, but it seems wrong to me:
>>>>
>>>> 57 // Hack: MAXPATHLEN is 4095 on some Linux and 4096 on others.
>>>> This may
>>>> 58 // cause problems if JVM and the rest of JDK are built on
>>>> different
>>>> 59 // Linux releases. Here we define JVM_MAXPATHLEN to be
>>>> MAXPATHLEN + 1,
>>>> 60 // so buffers declared in VM are always >= 4096.
>>>> 61 #define JVM_MAXPATHLEN MAXPATHLEN + 1
>>>>
>>>> It doesn't make sense to me to define an internal "max path length"
>>>> that can _exceed_ the platform max!
>>>>
>>>> That aside there's no support for building different parts of the
>>>> JDK on different platforms and then bringing them together. And in
>>>> any case I would think the real problem would be building on a
>>>> platform that uses 4096 and running on one that uses 4095!
>>>>
>>>> But that aside this is a Linux hack and should be guarded by ifdef
>>>> LINUX. (I doubt BSD needs it, the bsd file is just a copy of the
>>>> linux one - the JDK macosx version does the right thing). Solaris
>>>> and AIX should stay as-is at MAXPATHLEN.
>>>
>>> All of the unix platforms had MAXPATHLEN+1. I'll leave it for now
>>> and we can investigate that further.
>>
>> I see the following existing code:
>>
>> src/java.base/unix/native/include/jvm_md.h:
>>
>> #define JVM_MAXPATHLEN MAXPATHLEN
>>
>> src/java.base/macosx/native/include/jvm_md.h
>>
>> #define JVM_MAXPATHLEN MAXPATHLEN
>>
>> src/hotspot/os/aix/jvm_aix.h
>>
>> #define JVM_MAXPATHLEN MAXPATHLEN
>>
>> src/hotspot/os/bsd/jvm_bsd.h
>>
>> #define JVM_MAXPATHLEN MAXPATHLEN + 1 // blindly copied from Linux
>> version
>>
>> src/hotspot/os/linux/jvm_linux.h
>>
>> #define JVM_MAXPATHLEN MAXPATHLEN + 1
>>
>> src/hotspot/os/solaris/jvm_solaris.h
>>
>> #define JVM_MAXPATHLEN MAXPATHLEN
>>
>> This is a linux only hack (if you ignore the blind copy from linux
>> into the BSD code in the VM).
>
> Oh, thanks, so should I add a bunch of ifdefs then? Or do you think
> having MAXPATHLEN + 1 will really break the other platforms? Do you
> really see this as a problem or are you just pointing out inconsistency?
>>
>>>>
>>>> 86 #define ASYNC_SIGNAL SIGJVM2
>>>>
>>>> This only exists on Solaris so I think should be in #ifdef SOLARIS,
>>>> to make that clear.
>>>
>>> Ok. I'll add this.
>>>>
>>>> ---
>>>>
>>>> src/java.base/windows/native/include/jvm_md.h
>>>>
>>>> Given the differences between the two versions either something has
>>>> been broken or "extern C" declarations are not needed :)
>>>
>>> Well, they are needed for Hotspot to build and do not prevent jdk
>>> from building. I don't know what was broken.
>>
>> We really need to understand this better. Maybe related to the map
>> files that expose the symbols. ??
>
> They're needed because the JDK files are written mostly in C and that
> doesn't complain about the linkage difference. Hotspot files are in C++
> which does complain.
>
>>
>>>>
>>>> ---
>>>>
>>>> That was a really painful way to spend most of my Friday. TGIF! :)
>>>
>>> Thanks for going through it. See comments inline for changes.
>>> Generating a webrev takes hours so I'm not going to do that unless
>>> you insist.
>>
>> An incremental webrev shouldn't take long - right? You're a mq maestro
>> now. :)
>
> Well I generally trash a repository whenever I use mq but sure.
>>
>> If you can reasonably produce an incremental webrev once you've
>> settled on all the comments/issues that would be good.
>
> Ok, sure.
>
> Coleen
>>
>> Thanks,
>> David
>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Coleen
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> David
>>>> -----
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 27/10/2017 6:44 AM, coleen.phillimore at oracle.com wrote:
>>>>> Hi Magnus,
>>>>>
>>>>> Thank you for reviewing this. I have a new version that takes out
>>>>> the hack in globalDefinitions.hpp and adds casts to
>>>>> src/hotspot/share/opto/type.cpp instead.
>>>>>
>>>>> Also some fixes from Martin at SAP.
>>>>>
>>>>> open webrev at http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~coleenp/8189610.02/webrev
>>>>>
>>>>> see below.
>>>>>
>>>>> On 10/26/17 5:57 AM, Magnus Ihse Bursie wrote:
>>>>>> Coleen,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thank you for addressing this!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 2017-10-25 18:49, coleen.phillimore at oracle.com wrote:
>>>>>>> Summary: removed hotspot version of jvm*h and jni*h files
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Mostly used sed to remove prims/jvm.h and move #include "jvm.h"
>>>>>>> after precompiled.h, so if you have repetitive stress wrist
>>>>>>> issues don't click on most of these files.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> There were more issues to resolve, however. The JDK windows
>>>>>>> jni_md.h file defined jint as long and the hotspot windows
>>>>>>> jni_x86.h as int. I had to choose the jdk version since it's the
>>>>>>> public version, so there are changes to the hotspot files for
>>>>>>> this. Generally I changed the code to use 'int' rather than
>>>>>>> 'jint' where the surrounding API didn't insist on consistently
>>>>>>> using java types. We should mostly be using C++ types within
>>>>>>> hotspot except in interfaces to native/JNI code. There are a
>>>>>>> couple of hacks in places where adding multiple jint casts was
>>>>>>> too painful.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Tested with JPRT and tier2-4 (in progress).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> open webrev at http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~coleenp/8189610.01/webrev
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Looks great!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Just a few comments:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> * src/java.base/unix/native/include/jni_md.h:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I don't think the externally_visible attribute should be there for
>>>>>> arm. I know this was the case for the corresponding hotspot file
>>>>>> for arm, but that was techically incorrect. The proper dependency
>>>>>> here is that externally_visible should be in all JNIEXPORT if and
>>>>>> only if we're building with JVM feature "link-time-opt".
>>>>>> Traditionally, that feature been enabled when building arm32
>>>>>> builds, and only then, so there's been a (coincidentally)
>>>>>> connection here. Nowadays, Oracle does not care about the arm32
>>>>>> builds, and I'm not sure if anyone else is building them with
>>>>>> link-time-opt enabled.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It does seem wrong to me to export this behavior in the public
>>>>>> jni_md.h file, though. I think the correct way to solve this, if
>>>>>> we should continue supporting link-time-opt is to make sure this
>>>>>> attribute is set for exported hotspot functions. If it's still
>>>>>> needed, that is. A quick googling seems to indicate that
>>>>>> visibility("default") might be enough in modern gcc's.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> A third option is to remove the support for link-time-opt
>>>>>> entirely, if it's not really used.
>>>>>
>>>>> I didn't know how to change this since we are still building ARM
>>>>> with the jdk10/hs repository, and ARM needed this change. I could
>>>>> wait until we bring down the jdk10/master changes that remove the
>>>>> ARM build and remove this conditional before I push. Or we could
>>>>> file an RFE to remove link-time-opt (?) and remove it then?
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> * src/java.base/unix/native/include/jvm_md.h and
>>>>>> src/java.base/windows/native/include/jvm_md.h:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> These files define a public API, and contain non-trivial changes.
>>>>>> I suspect you should file a CSR request. (Even though I realize
>>>>>> you're only matching the header file with the reality.)
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I filed the CSR. Waiting for the next steps.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>> Coleen
>>>>>
>>>>>> /Magnus
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> bug link https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8189610
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I have a script to update copyright files on commit.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thanks to Magnus and ErikJ for the makefile changes.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>> Coleen
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>
More information about the build-dev
mailing list