OpenJDK 6 b19 features?

[Joseph D. Darcy]

Andrew John Hughes wrote:
> On 19 February 2010 18:36, Joseph D. Darcy <Joe.Darcy at sun.com> wrote:
>   
>> Andrew John Hughes wrote:
>>     
>>> On 18 February 2010 08:27, Gary Benson <gbenson at redhat.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>       
>>>> Andrew John Hughes wrote:
>>>>
>>>>         
>>>>> On 17 February 2010 17:55, Joseph D. Darcy <Joe.Darcy at sun.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>           
>>>>>> Andrew has already started work on updating HotSpot.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>             
>>>>> This will be ready to push as soon as the issue with Daniel's patch
>>>>> is resolved.
>>>>>
>>>>>           
>>>> Does this updated HotSpot have Zero in it?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>         
>>> No, the patches were applied to hs17.
>>>
>>> We could backport it though.  With hs16, we'll be using what is now
>>> the alternate HotSpot build for IcedTea6 that is closer to the version
>>> against which Zero was applied upstream.
>>>
>>> Joe, what do you think about making Zero available upstream in
>>> OpenJDK6?  It already ships with IcedTea6 and builds have passed the
>>> TCK.
>>>
>>>       
>> Hmm.  I'm not sure.  What would making Zero available upstream mean exactly
>> for OpenJDK 6?  I'm inferring Zero in is sufficiently new versions of
>> HotSpot (hs17 vs hs16) given the presence of a src/cpu/zero directory in the
>> JDK 7 HotSpot repo.  Would the rough proposal be to port the Zero fixes
>> applied to hs17 in JDK 7 to the hs16 in OpenJDK 6?
>>
>>     
>
> It would.  In fact, there would be no work to speak of as IcedTea6
> already supports applying it to both hs14 and hs16 (the latter being
> much less work).  Having it upstream would simplify the IcedTea build
> a little and possibly make it available to more people.
>
> I'm sure Gary (Zero's main author) can also make some other good
> points for its inclusion... :-)
>   

What would be the impact of putting Zero in OpenJDK 6 b19 with any 
future update of OpenJDK 6 to HotSpot 17, just doing work now versus later?

-Joe