Shenandoah and aarch64
Roman Kennke
rkennke at redhat.com
Mon Jul 15 11:19:28 UTC 2019
>> For the Shenandoah part, would shenandoah/jdk11 work as staging repo? It
>> seems to be the obvious choice because we already have it, and it is
>> supposed to only contain the actual difference between upstream jdk11u
>> and Shenandoah.
>
> Perfect. That could not be any better.
Great. Let's work with that then. We want to backport the LRB and
related stuff first, and comb through and sort out any possibly unneeded
changes.
>> For jdk8, I am not quite sure. We do have shenandoah/jdk8. I believe it
>> probably would make sense to separate the aarch64 integration into 8u
>> from Shenandoah and not make Aarch64 wait for Shenandoah. In this case,
>> I think shenandoah/jdk8 would be good as staging for Shenandoah into
>> jdk8u too.
>
> That's OK, but ... that repo is cluttered with a lot of history.
> Perhaps that doesn't matter, but it will be a confusing repo to work
> on. Wouldn't something a bit cleaner be easier?
Well, pretty much same as jdk11. We want to first backport LRB and
friends, which should clean up the shared code changes very
considerably. And after that, we shall comb through:
https://builds.shipilev.net/patch-openjdk-shenandoah-jdk8-only-shared/hotspot/
and sort out whatever is no longer needed.
Right now it's mixed up with aarch64 changes, which is why I'd probably
push aarch64 to jdk8u first, which should be whatever is:
http://hg.openjdk.java.net/aarch64-port/jdk8u/hotspot/
When this is done, we can take the complete patch and push it at once to
jdk8u.
Do you agree?
Roman
More information about the jdk8u-dev
mailing list