Clarification regarding the GitHub Actions pre-submit testing

Andrew Haley aph at
Thu Mar 18 16:51:42 UTC 2021

On 3/18/21 1:18 PM, Aleksey Shipilev wrote:
> Taking current state of Loom as the example: it has lots of direct uses of x86-only definitions from 
> the shared code. As I said before, it is a fair game for non-mainline development to hack the 
> prototypes any way they want, including focusing only on one platform at a time. But if we decide to 
> integrate current Loom into mainline, then GHA would complain that foreign arches are not buildable, 
> and that would point to this not-yet-reconciled cohesion between shared and arch-specific code. That 
> is, GHA would be a very basic quality gate working as intended.

The question is this: on whom does the buildability requirement rest?

If we are to allow many ports into OpenJDK, and I believe we should,
then the burden of even stubbing things out to make sure that all
weird ports work is intolerable for contributors. It can not scale.

I say, therefore, that it's for the maintainers of those ports to
fix things up, before a patch is committed if they can, after if
they can't.

Andrew Haley  (he/him)
Java Platform Lead Engineer
Red Hat UK Ltd. <>
EAC8 43EB D3EF DB98 CC77 2FAD A5CD 6035 332F A671

More information about the jdk-dev mailing list