From rvansa at openjdk.org  Thu May  9 07:24:21 2024
From: rvansa at openjdk.org (Radim Vansa)
Date: Thu, 9 May 2024 07:24:21 GMT
Subject: [crac] RFR: Forbid compatibility of CRaC with BootJDK 22
In-Reply-To: <73PqS03UcInC-PfmmVE079PwhVe2qgUvaQuiYJuLsrE=.9443e0f5-fc5f-4b0a-9714-c1c6a8078cfb@github.com>
References: <73PqS03UcInC-PfmmVE079PwhVe2qgUvaQuiYJuLsrE=.9443e0f5-fc5f-4b0a-9714-c1c6a8078cfb@github.com>
Message-ID: <dtCUbu3KES_lSiukHDBdjN-4cY_uM2nq6D65A78461M=.1c4550ab-3290-483c-a3c1-02e1f7ba8015@github.com>

On Tue, 9 Apr 2024 12:08:46 GMT, Jan Kratochvil <jkratochvil at openjdk.org> wrote:

> warning: unknown enum constant Feature.STREAM_GATHERERS
> error: warnings found and -Werror specified

Marked as reviewed by rvansa (Committer).

-------------

PR Review: https://git.openjdk.org/crac/pull/154#pullrequestreview-2047315761

From jkratochvil at openjdk.org  Thu May  9 07:27:19 2024
From: jkratochvil at openjdk.org (Jan Kratochvil)
Date: Thu, 9 May 2024 07:27:19 GMT
Subject: [crac] RFR: Forbid compatibility of CRaC with BootJDK 22
In-Reply-To: <73PqS03UcInC-PfmmVE079PwhVe2qgUvaQuiYJuLsrE=.9443e0f5-fc5f-4b0a-9714-c1c6a8078cfb@github.com>
References: <73PqS03UcInC-PfmmVE079PwhVe2qgUvaQuiYJuLsrE=.9443e0f5-fc5f-4b0a-9714-c1c6a8078cfb@github.com>
Message-ID: <gksKVYyJ4XfIX1B5zgVJcw1G4fSrkMbRBhgU_LyrVlo=.2450532b-6e95-4c7b-a249-b22f5dc265b6@github.com>

On Tue, 9 Apr 2024 12:08:46 GMT, Jan Kratochvil <jkratochvil at openjdk.org> wrote:

> warning: unknown enum constant Feature.STREAM_GATHERERS
> error: warnings found and -Werror specified

@AntonKozlov is that OK for check-in? CRaC should have been maybe rather merged with OpenJDK 22 IIUC?

-------------

PR Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/crac/pull/154#issuecomment-2102105985

From jkratochvil at openjdk.org  Sun May 26 12:43:24 2024
From: jkratochvil at openjdk.org (Jan Kratochvil)
Date: Sun, 26 May 2024 12:43:24 GMT
Subject: [crac] RFR: Simplify CPUFeatures code [v3]
In-Reply-To: <dCH5SheONvtJlWnCZoZU0gYjIh_uwmFR8RXhqNT7XtI=.33cc77de-5790-4f74-9c30-84790f146ee5@github.com>
References: <RiMjp_2Y2SOvPOBUC9QgV6QtWyAQdkuVTaBqKlE5UgA=.aef8c69a-455e-4898-9aac-6135f372970d@github.com>
 <dCH5SheONvtJlWnCZoZU0gYjIh_uwmFR8RXhqNT7XtI=.33cc77de-5790-4f74-9c30-84790f146ee5@github.com>
Message-ID: <kLPVqlOPqhDX74fiKiLkiX8LpwFbUK4VyQHV9mN_rCU=.e57fe576-f0a9-4151-aabe-44b8cd9ed25e@github.com>

On Thu, 18 Apr 2024 13:59:29 GMT, Jan Kratochvil <jkratochvil at openjdk.org> wrote:

>> There is no functionality change. I guess the new code should be more simple and shorter. It was originally suggested by @AntonKozlov to use more functions than macros.
>> 
>> 
>>  1 file changed, 44 insertions(+), 82 deletions(-)
>>  ```
>> So I find it clearly an improvement.
>> The readable sub-commit is: https://github.com/openjdk/crac/pull/112/commits/6d9cb72b7a838dd4c9f107c5b71c4275005a0c23
>> Otherwise it gets messed up by the other commit just renaming things.
>> As an explanation: Original code had two lists of the same CPU features. An `EXCESSIVE` list and an `GLIBC_DISABLE` list. The had to be kept in sync (their sets being equal) which was sanity checked:
>> 
>>     if (PASTE_TOKENS(disable_handled_, kind) != PASTE_TOKENS(excessive_handled_, kind))                                                  \
>> 
>> So now there is the list just once (`EXCESSIVE`, the `GLIBC_DISABLE` one has been deleted). It looks stupid but when coding it I did not see it.
>> Coding both variants of #136 was needlessly more difficult without this pull request applied and now I have to rebase this pull request.
>
> Jan Kratochvil has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional commit since the last revision:
> 
>   Remove iomanip fix

I have submitted it downstream, it can bubble up here upstream later.

-------------

PR Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/crac/pull/112#issuecomment-2132206828