From sundararajan.athijegannathan at oracle.com Tue Sep 1 13:55:37 2015 From: sundararajan.athijegannathan at oracle.com (Sundararajan Athijegannathan) Date: Tue, 1 Sep 2015 19:25:37 +0530 Subject: [8u-dev] approval request for 8068901: Surprising behavior with more than one functional interface on a class , 8068903: Can't invoke vararg @FunctionalInterface methods Message-ID: <55E5AE59.1070303@oracle.com> Please approve. Bugs: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8068901 https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8068903 jdk9 review thread: http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/nashorn-dev/2015-September/005112.html jdk8u webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~sundar/8068901_8068903/8u/webrev.00/ Backported 'as is' except for modular source layout difference. Thanks, -Sundar From rob.mckenna at oracle.com Tue Sep 1 15:02:33 2015 From: rob.mckenna at oracle.com (Rob McKenna) Date: Tue, 1 Sep 2015 16:02:33 +0100 Subject: [8u-dev] approval request for 8068901: Surprising behavior with more than one functional interface on a class , 8068903: Can't invoke vararg @FunctionalInterface methods In-Reply-To: <55E5AE59.1070303@oracle.com> References: <55E5AE59.1070303@oracle.com> Message-ID: <55E5BE09.80203@oracle.com> Approved -Rob On 01/09/15 14:55, Sundararajan Athijegannathan wrote: > Please approve. > > Bugs: > https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8068901 > https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8068903 > > jdk9 review thread: > > http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/nashorn-dev/2015-September/005112.html > > > jdk8u webrev: > > http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~sundar/8068901_8068903/8u/webrev.00/ > > Backported 'as is' except for modular source layout difference. > > Thanks, > -Sundar From michael.haupt at oracle.com Tue Sep 1 19:52:37 2015 From: michael.haupt at oracle.com (Michael Haupt) Date: Tue, 1 Sep 2015 21:52:37 +0200 Subject: [8u-dev] Request for approval: 8073644: Assertion in LambdaFormEditor.bindArgumentType is too strict Message-ID: Dear all, please approve this backport request. Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8073644 JDK9 webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~vlivanov/8073644/webrev.00 JDK9 review thread: http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/core-libs-dev/2015-February/031871.html Changes apply cleanly to jdk8u-dev after path reshuffling from modular source code layout. Thanks, Michael -- Dr. Michael Haupt | Principal Member of Technical Staff Phone: +49 331 200 7277 | Fax: +49 331 200 7561 Oracle Java Platform Group | LangTools Team | Nashorn Oracle Deutschland B.V. & Co. KG, Schiffbauergasse 14 | 14467 Potsdam, Germany Oracle is committed to developing practices and products that help protect the environment From rob.mckenna at oracle.com Tue Sep 1 20:51:56 2015 From: rob.mckenna at oracle.com (Rob McKenna) Date: Tue, 1 Sep 2015 21:51:56 +0100 Subject: [8u-dev] Request for approval: 8073644: Assertion in LambdaFormEditor.bindArgumentType is too strict In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <55E60FEC.70806@oracle.com> Approved -Rob On 01/09/15 20:52, Michael Haupt wrote: > Dear all, > > please approve this backport request. > > Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8073644 > JDK9 webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~vlivanov/8073644/webrev.00 > JDK9 review thread: http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/core-libs-dev/2015-February/031871.html > > Changes apply cleanly to jdk8u-dev after path reshuffling from modular source code layout. > > Thanks, > > Michael > From sundararajan.athijegannathan at oracle.com Wed Sep 2 17:02:20 2015 From: sundararajan.athijegannathan at oracle.com (Sundararajan Athijegannathan) Date: Wed, 2 Sep 2015 22:32:20 +0530 Subject: [8u-dev] approval request for 8134931: jdk.nashorn.internal.codegen.TypeMap should not use Map Message-ID: <55E72B9C.1030003@oracle.com> Please approve. Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8134931 jdk9 review thread: http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/nashorn-dev/2015-September/005131.html jdk8u webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~sundar/8134931/8u/webrev.00/ Thanks, -Sundar From sean.coffey at oracle.com Wed Sep 2 17:20:30 2015 From: sean.coffey at oracle.com (=?UTF-8?B?U2XDoW4gQ29mZmV5?=) Date: Wed, 02 Sep 2015 18:20:30 +0100 Subject: [8u-dev] approval request for 8134931: jdk.nashorn.internal.codegen.TypeMap should not use Map In-Reply-To: <55E72B9C.1030003@oracle.com> References: <55E72B9C.1030003@oracle.com> Message-ID: <55E72FDE.3040303@oracle.com> Approved. If the code differs (post module path changes) with the JDK 9 change, please get a peer review before pushing. Regards, Sean. On 02/09/15 18:02, Sundararajan Athijegannathan wrote: > Please approve. > > Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8134931 > jdk9 review thread: > http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/nashorn-dev/2015-September/005131.html > jdk8u webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~sundar/8134931/8u/webrev.00/ > > Thanks, > -Sundar From sundararajan.athijegannathan at oracle.com Thu Sep 3 03:37:59 2015 From: sundararajan.athijegannathan at oracle.com (Sundararajan Athijegannathan) Date: Thu, 3 Sep 2015 09:07:59 +0530 Subject: [8u-dev] approval request for 8134931: jdk.nashorn.internal.codegen.TypeMap should not use Map In-Reply-To: <55E72FDE.3040303@oracle.com> References: <55E72B9C.1030003@oracle.com> <55E72FDE.3040303@oracle.com> Message-ID: <55E7C097.7000609@oracle.com> No, there is no difference apart from module path changes. PS. Pushing the changes.. Thanks, -Sundar On 9/2/2015 10:50 PM, Se?n Coffey wrote: > Approved. If the code differs (post module path changes) with the JDK > 9 change, please get a peer review before pushing. > > Regards, > Sean. > > On 02/09/15 18:02, Sundararajan Athijegannathan wrote: >> Please approve. >> >> Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8134931 >> jdk9 review thread: >> http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/nashorn-dev/2015-September/005131.html >> jdk8u webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~sundar/8134931/8u/webrev.00/ >> >> Thanks, >> -Sundar > From sundararajan.athijegannathan at oracle.com Thu Sep 3 06:43:17 2015 From: sundararajan.athijegannathan at oracle.com (Sundararajan Athijegannathan) Date: Thu, 3 Sep 2015 12:13:17 +0530 Subject: [8u] approval request for 8134973: Control flow exceptions should avoid filling stack trace Message-ID: <55E7EC05.5000502@oracle.com> Please approve. Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8134973 jdk9 review thread: http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/nashorn-dev/2015-September/005138.html jdk8u webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~sundar/8134973/8u/webrev.00/ Backported 'as is' except for modular source layout difference. Thanks, -Sundar From sean.coffey at oracle.com Thu Sep 3 08:16:36 2015 From: sean.coffey at oracle.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Se=c3=a1n_Coffey?=) Date: Thu, 3 Sep 2015 09:16:36 +0100 Subject: [8u] approval request for 8134973: Control flow exceptions should avoid filling stack trace In-Reply-To: <55E7EC05.5000502@oracle.com> References: <55E7EC05.5000502@oracle.com> Message-ID: <55E801E4.1000204@oracle.com> Approved. Regards, Sean. On 03/09/2015 07:43, Sundararajan Athijegannathan wrote: > Please approve. > > Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8134973 > jdk9 review thread: > http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/nashorn-dev/2015-September/005138.html > jdk8u webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~sundar/8134973/8u/webrev.00/ > > Backported 'as is' except for modular source layout difference. > > Thanks, > -Sundar From peter.brunet at oracle.com Thu Sep 3 14:27:12 2015 From: peter.brunet at oracle.com (Pete Brunet) Date: Thu, 3 Sep 2015 09:27:12 -0500 Subject: RfA JDK-8134453, JAWS crashes in WindowsAccessBridge.DLL on 32 bit 8u60 running on 32 bit Win 7 Message-ID: <55E858C0.3030602@oracle.com> Hi, I'd like to push the patch for JDK-8134453. Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8134453 Patch: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~ptbrunet/JDK-8134453/webrev.01/ Reviews: http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/build-dev/2015-September/015505.html The change was to change a lower case -D compile time definition to upper case so the proper code for 32 bit Java for a 32 bit OS target would be executed by the C++ preprocessor. Pete From rob.mckenna at oracle.com Thu Sep 3 14:48:42 2015 From: rob.mckenna at oracle.com (Rob McKenna) Date: Thu, 3 Sep 2015 15:48:42 +0100 Subject: RfA JDK-8134453, JAWS crashes in WindowsAccessBridge.DLL on 32 bit 8u60 running on 32 bit Win 7 In-Reply-To: <55E858C0.3030602@oracle.com> References: <55E858C0.3030602@oracle.com> Message-ID: <55E85DCA.4090103@oracle.com> Approved -Rob On 03/09/15 15:27, Pete Brunet wrote: > Hi, I'd like to push the patch for JDK-8134453. > > Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8134453 > Patch: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~ptbrunet/JDK-8134453/webrev.01/ > Reviews: > http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/build-dev/2015-September/015505.html > > The change was to change a lower case -D compile time definition to > upper case so the proper code for 32 bit Java for a 32 bit OS target > would be executed by the C++ preprocessor. > > Pete > From brian.burkhalter at oracle.com Thu Sep 3 18:44:03 2015 From: brian.burkhalter at oracle.com (Brian Burkhalter) Date: Thu, 3 Sep 2015 11:44:03 -0700 Subject: [8u-dev] Request for approval: 8133647: (ch) Test java/nio/channels/AsynchronousSocketChannel/StressLoopback.java fails for Windows XP Message-ID: <98FD1E3C-9CE8-4D96-A45A-9454D016E0E8@oracle.com> Please approve the following change: Issue: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8133647 Review: http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/nio-dev/2015-September/003310.html Patch: Contained in the initial message of the review thread. Note that this problem does not affect JDK 9, which does not run on Windows XP, nor JDK 7, which already contains it. Thanks, Brian From sean.coffey at oracle.com Thu Sep 3 18:45:23 2015 From: sean.coffey at oracle.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Se=c3=a1n_Coffey?=) Date: Thu, 3 Sep 2015 19:45:23 +0100 Subject: [8u-dev] Request for approval: 8133647: (ch) Test java/nio/channels/AsynchronousSocketChannel/StressLoopback.java fails for Windows XP In-Reply-To: <98FD1E3C-9CE8-4D96-A45A-9454D016E0E8@oracle.com> References: <98FD1E3C-9CE8-4D96-A45A-9454D016E0E8@oracle.com> Message-ID: <55E89543.8060808@oracle.com> Approved. Regards, Sean. On 03/09/2015 19:44, Brian Burkhalter wrote: > Please approve the following change: > > Issue: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8133647 > Review: http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/nio-dev/2015-September/003310.html > Patch: Contained in the initial message of the review thread. > > Note that this problem does not affect JDK 9, which does not run on Windows XP, nor JDK 7, which already contains it. > > Thanks, > > Brian From sundararajan.athijegannathan at oracle.com Fri Sep 4 11:56:12 2015 From: sundararajan.athijegannathan at oracle.com (Sundararajan Athijegannathan) Date: Fri, 4 Sep 2015 17:26:12 +0530 Subject: [8u] approval request for 8135054:Add more samples to nashorn samples directory Message-ID: <55E986DC.3020207@oracle.com> Please approve. Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8135054 jdk9 review thread: http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/nashorn-dev/2015-September/005152.html jdk8u webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~sundar/8135054/8u/webrev.00/ Backporting all samples "as is" except for two jdk9 specific samples - jrtlist.js (requires jrt file system), java_completion.js (requires jshell). CC'ing nashorn-dev. Thanks, -Sundar From sean.coffey at oracle.com Fri Sep 4 12:29:09 2015 From: sean.coffey at oracle.com (=?UTF-8?B?U2XDoW4gQ29mZmV5?=) Date: Fri, 04 Sep 2015 13:29:09 +0100 Subject: [8u] approval request for 8135054:Add more samples to nashorn samples directory In-Reply-To: <55E986DC.3020207@oracle.com> References: <55E986DC.3020207@oracle.com> Message-ID: <55E98E95.5060109@oracle.com> Approved but subject to peer code review. Regards, Sean. On 04/09/15 12:56, Sundararajan Athijegannathan wrote: > Please approve. > > Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8135054 > jdk9 review thread: > http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/nashorn-dev/2015-September/005152.html > jdk8u webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~sundar/8135054/8u/webrev.00/ > > Backporting all samples "as is" except for two jdk9 specific samples - > jrtlist.js (requires jrt file system), java_completion.js (requires > jshell). > CC'ing nashorn-dev. > > Thanks, > -Sundar From michael.haupt at oracle.com Fri Sep 4 12:47:33 2015 From: michael.haupt at oracle.com (Michael Haupt) Date: Fri, 4 Sep 2015 14:47:33 +0200 Subject: [8u] approval request for 8135054:Add more samples to nashorn samples directory In-Reply-To: <55E98E95.5060109@oracle.com> References: <55E986DC.3020207@oracle.com> <55E98E95.5060109@oracle.com> Message-ID: ... lower-case thumbs up. Michael > Am 04.09.2015 um 14:29 schrieb Se?n Coffey : > > Approved but subject to peer code review. > > Regards, > Sean. > > On 04/09/15 12:56, Sundararajan Athijegannathan wrote: >> Please approve. >> >> Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8135054 >> jdk9 review thread: http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/nashorn-dev/2015-September/005152.html >> jdk8u webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~sundar/8135054/8u/webrev.00/ >> >> Backporting all samples "as is" except for two jdk9 specific samples - jrtlist.js (requires jrt file system), java_completion.js (requires jshell). >> CC'ing nashorn-dev. >> >> Thanks, >> -Sundar > -- Dr. Michael Haupt | Principal Member of Technical Staff Phone: +49 331 200 7277 | Fax: +49 331 200 7561 Oracle Java Platform Group | LangTools Team | Nashorn Oracle Deutschland B.V. & Co. KG, Schiffbauergasse 14 | 14467 Potsdam, Germany Oracle is committed to developing practices and products that help protect the environment From hannes.wallnoefer at oracle.com Fri Sep 4 12:50:32 2015 From: hannes.wallnoefer at oracle.com (Hannes Wallnoefer) Date: Fri, 4 Sep 2015 14:50:32 +0200 Subject: [8u] approval request for 8135054:Add more samples to nashorn samples directory In-Reply-To: <55E98E95.5060109@oracle.com> References: <55E986DC.3020207@oracle.com> <55E98E95.5060109@oracle.com> Message-ID: <55E99398.4070408@oracle.com> +1 for the backport. Hannes Am 2015-09-04 um 14:29 schrieb Se?n Coffey: > Approved but subject to peer code review. > > Regards, > Sean. > > On 04/09/15 12:56, Sundararajan Athijegannathan wrote: >> Please approve. >> >> Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8135054 >> jdk9 review thread: >> http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/nashorn-dev/2015-September/005152.html >> jdk8u webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~sundar/8135054/8u/webrev.00/ >> >> Backporting all samples "as is" except for two jdk9 specific samples >> - jrtlist.js (requires jrt file system), java_completion.js (requires >> jshell). >> CC'ing nashorn-dev. >> >> Thanks, >> -Sundar > From ivan.gerasimov at oracle.com Fri Sep 4 12:55:34 2015 From: ivan.gerasimov at oracle.com (Ivan Gerasimov) Date: Fri, 4 Sep 2015 15:55:34 +0300 Subject: [8u-dev] Request for approval to backport: 7194452: Remove "Reverse" PKIX CertPathBuilder implementation Message-ID: <55E994C6.2090201@oracle.com> Hello! I'd like to backport this fix to jdk8u-dev. Would you please approve? Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-7194452 Jdk9 changeset: http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk9/dev/jdk/rev/0cc533516089 Jdk9 review: http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/security-dev/2015-April/012012.html The open part of the fix applies cleanly after unshuffling. Sincerely yours, Ivan From rob.mckenna at oracle.com Fri Sep 4 13:00:26 2015 From: rob.mckenna at oracle.com (Rob McKenna) Date: Fri, 4 Sep 2015 14:00:26 +0100 Subject: [8u-dev] Request for approval to backport: 7194452: Remove "Reverse" PKIX CertPathBuilder implementation In-Reply-To: <55E994C6.2090201@oracle.com> References: <55E994C6.2090201@oracle.com> Message-ID: <55E995EA.5060100@oracle.com> Approved -Rob On 04/09/15 13:55, Ivan Gerasimov wrote: > Hello! > > I'd like to backport this fix to jdk8u-dev. > Would you please approve? > > Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-7194452 > Jdk9 changeset: http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk9/dev/jdk/rev/0cc533516089 > Jdk9 review: > http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/security-dev/2015-April/012012.html > > The open part of the fix applies cleanly after unshuffling. > > Sincerely yours, > Ivan From ivan.gerasimov at oracle.com Fri Sep 4 15:47:09 2015 From: ivan.gerasimov at oracle.com (Ivan Gerasimov) Date: Fri, 4 Sep 2015 18:47:09 +0300 Subject: [8u-dev] Request for approval to backport: 7194452: Remove "Reverse" PKIX CertPathBuilder implementation In-Reply-To: <55E995EA.5060100@oracle.com> References: <55E994C6.2090201@oracle.com> <55E995EA.5060100@oracle.com> Message-ID: <55E9BCFD.4080107@oracle.com> Thanks! On 04.09.2015 16:00, Rob McKenna wrote: > Approved > > -Rob > > On 04/09/15 13:55, Ivan Gerasimov wrote: >> Hello! >> >> I'd like to backport this fix to jdk8u-dev. >> Would you please approve? >> >> Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-7194452 >> Jdk9 changeset: http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk9/dev/jdk/rev/0cc533516089 >> Jdk9 review: >> http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/security-dev/2015-April/012012.html >> >> >> The open part of the fix applies cleanly after unshuffling. >> >> Sincerely yours, >> Ivan > From omajid at redhat.com Fri Sep 4 21:21:42 2015 From: omajid at redhat.com (Omair Majid) Date: Fri, 4 Sep 2015 17:21:42 -0400 Subject: [8u-communication] JDK 8u60 released today! (and 8u72 timeline) In-Reply-To: <55D4BC2F.3010407@oracle.com> References: <55D38411.7080002@oracle.com> <2132082391.12414344.1439997153546.JavaMail.zimbra@redhat.com> <55D4BC2F.3010407@oracle.com> Message-ID: <20150904212142.GD7303@redhat.com> Hi Rob, * Rob McKenna [2015-08-19 13:26]: > Some folks may be wondering how they get fixes pushed into 8u66 so > just to reiterate, all you have to do is follow the critical approval > process [1] and the maintainers will take care of the rest! I am hoping I am misreading or misinterpreting some of this because it sounds to me like you are saying that the community can't see what fixes a future 8uXY release contains until it is tagged and released on the day of the release (which coincides with the day of the CPU). What I understand is that we can still ask for changesets to be backported but we can't actually see/test/fix the 8u66 trees until a release is "done"? And the same will happen for the 8u72 release after this October so we can't see/test/fix what-really-is-8u72 ether after October? Is that right? Thanks, Omair -- PGP Key: 66484681 (http://pgp.mit.edu/) Fingerprint = F072 555B 0A17 3957 4E95 0056 F286 F14F 6648 4681 From david.buck at oracle.com Sat Sep 5 03:08:33 2015 From: david.buck at oracle.com (david buck) Date: Sat, 05 Sep 2015 12:08:33 +0900 Subject: [8u-dev] RfA: 8135002: Fix or remove broken links in objectMonitor.cpp comments Message-ID: <55EA5CB1.702@oracle.com> Hi! Please approve my backport of this trivial change from jdk9 to jdk8. bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8135002 jdk9 review thread: http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/hotspot-runtime-dev/2015-September/015817.html jdk9 changeset: http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk9/hs-rt/hotspot/rev/f74b3ce62e1f Patch applies cleanly as-is. Cheers, -Buck From sean.coffey at oracle.com Sun Sep 6 11:46:59 2015 From: sean.coffey at oracle.com (Sean Coffey) Date: Sun, 6 Sep 2015 12:46:59 +0100 Subject: [8u-dev] RfA: 8135002: Fix or remove broken links in objectMonitor.cpp comments In-Reply-To: <55EA5CB1.702@oracle.com> References: <55EA5CB1.702@oracle.com> Message-ID: <55EC27B3.9050309@oracle.com> Approved. regards, Sean. On 05/09/2015 04:08, david buck wrote: > Hi! > > Please approve my backport of this trivial change from jdk9 to jdk8. > > bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8135002 > > jdk9 review thread: > http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/hotspot-runtime-dev/2015-September/015817.html > > jdk9 changeset: > http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk9/hs-rt/hotspot/rev/f74b3ce62e1f > > Patch applies cleanly as-is. > > Cheers, > -Buck From rob.mckenna at oracle.com Mon Sep 7 14:31:46 2015 From: rob.mckenna at oracle.com (Rob McKenna) Date: Mon, 7 Sep 2015 15:31:46 +0100 Subject: [8u-communication] JDK 8u60 released today! (and 8u72 timeline) In-Reply-To: <20150904212142.GD7303@redhat.com> References: <55D38411.7080002@oracle.com> <2132082391.12414344.1439997153546.JavaMail.zimbra@redhat.com> <55D4BC2F.3010407@oracle.com> <20150904212142.GD7303@redhat.com> Message-ID: <55ED9FD2.1010800@oracle.com> Approved changesets are available in the always open forest so reproducing the state of a post-rdp2 release shouldn't be very difficult. Any fixes that go into a release post-RDP2 will have a corresponding JBS backport. If you search JBS for a fixVersion of 8uXX (and a resolved in build value >= to the RDP2 build) you'll see a list of fixes approved for that release. -Rob On 04/09/15 22:21, Omair Majid wrote: > Hi Rob, > > * Rob McKenna [2015-08-19 13:26]: >> Some folks may be wondering how they get fixes pushed into 8u66 so >> just to reiterate, all you have to do is follow the critical approval >> process [1] and the maintainers will take care of the rest! > > I am hoping I am misreading or misinterpreting some of this because it > sounds to me like you are saying that the community can't see what fixes > a future 8uXY release contains until it is tagged and released on the > day of the release (which coincides with the day of the CPU). What I > understand is that we can still ask for changesets to be backported but > we can't actually see/test/fix the 8u66 trees until a release is "done"? > And the same will happen for the 8u72 release after this October so we > can't see/test/fix what-really-is-8u72 ether after October? > > Is that right? > > Thanks, > Omair > From aph at redhat.com Mon Sep 7 16:49:25 2015 From: aph at redhat.com (Andrew Haley) Date: Mon, 7 Sep 2015 17:49:25 +0100 Subject: [8u-communication] JDK 8u60 released today! (and 8u72 timeline) In-Reply-To: <55ED9FD2.1010800@oracle.com> References: <55D38411.7080002@oracle.com> <2132082391.12414344.1439997153546.JavaMail.zimbra@redhat.com> <55D4BC2F.3010407@oracle.com> <20150904212142.GD7303@redhat.com> <55ED9FD2.1010800@oracle.com> Message-ID: <55EDC015.7080906@redhat.com> On 09/07/2015 03:31 PM, Rob McKenna wrote: > Approved changesets are available in the always open forest so > reproducing the state of a post-rdp2 release shouldn't be very difficult. I don't understand. To which always open forest are you referring? The JDK8u always open forest? Thanks, Andrew. From rob.mckenna at oracle.com Mon Sep 7 16:58:47 2015 From: rob.mckenna at oracle.com (Rob McKenna) Date: Mon, 7 Sep 2015 17:58:47 +0100 Subject: [8u-communication] JDK 8u60 released today! (and 8u72 timeline) In-Reply-To: <55EDC015.7080906@redhat.com> References: <55D38411.7080002@oracle.com> <2132082391.12414344.1439997153546.JavaMail.zimbra@redhat.com> <55D4BC2F.3010407@oracle.com> <20150904212142.GD7303@redhat.com> <55ED9FD2.1010800@oracle.com> <55EDC015.7080906@redhat.com> Message-ID: <55EDC247.7070004@oracle.com> Hi Andrew, Yes, all OpenJDK fixes must be pushed to the team forest which is now: http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk8u/jdk8u-dev/ -Rob On 07/09/15 17:49, Andrew Haley wrote: > On 09/07/2015 03:31 PM, Rob McKenna wrote: >> Approved changesets are available in the always open forest so >> reproducing the state of a post-rdp2 release shouldn't be very difficult. > > I don't understand. > > To which always open forest are you referring? The JDK8u always open > forest? > > Thanks, > Andrew. > > From gnu.andrew at redhat.com Mon Sep 7 19:15:39 2015 From: gnu.andrew at redhat.com (Andrew Hughes) Date: Mon, 7 Sep 2015 15:15:39 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [8u-communication] JDK 8u60 released today! (and 8u72 timeline) In-Reply-To: <55ED9FD2.1010800@oracle.com> References: <55D38411.7080002@oracle.com> <2132082391.12414344.1439997153546.JavaMail.zimbra@redhat.com> <55D4BC2F.3010407@oracle.com> <20150904212142.GD7303@redhat.com> <55ED9FD2.1010800@oracle.com> Message-ID: <1481269188.6802904.1441653339608.JavaMail.zimbra@redhat.com> ----- Original Message ----- > Approved changesets are available in the always open forest so > reproducing the state of a post-rdp2 release shouldn't be very difficult. > > Any fixes that go into a release post-RDP2 will have a corresponding JBS > backport. If you search JBS for a fixVersion of 8uXX (and a resolved in > build value >= to the RDP2 build) you'll see a list of fixes approved > for that release. Ok, so let me see if I understand this correctly. If I want to re-create, say, jdk8u66-b03, I would have to check out jdk8u66-b02 from http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk8u/jdk8u and friends, then go through the OpenJDK bug database and find every bug that was fixed in jdk8u66-b03 (e.g. [0]), then find out what the original bug ID is for each one, then backport all the changesets? Then, for jdk8u66-b04, I have to do the same again and so on. This seems unnecessarily convoluted and prone to error. Why not just make the trees available as before? [0] https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/issues/?jql=project%20%3D%20JDK%20AND%20status%20%3D%20Resolved%20AND%20%22Resolved%20In%20Build%22%20in%20%28b02%2C%20b03%29%20AND%20fixVersion%20%3D%208u66%20ORDER%20BY%20priority%20DESC > > -Rob > > On 04/09/15 22:21, Omair Majid wrote: > > Hi Rob, > > > > * Rob McKenna [2015-08-19 13:26]: > >> Some folks may be wondering how they get fixes pushed into 8u66 so > >> just to reiterate, all you have to do is follow the critical approval > >> process [1] and the maintainers will take care of the rest! > > > > I am hoping I am misreading or misinterpreting some of this because it > > sounds to me like you are saying that the community can't see what fixes > > a future 8uXY release contains until it is tagged and released on the > > day of the release (which coincides with the day of the CPU). What I > > understand is that we can still ask for changesets to be backported but > > we can't actually see/test/fix the 8u66 trees until a release is "done"? > > And the same will happen for the 8u72 release after this October so we > > can't see/test/fix what-really-is-8u72 ether after October? > > > > Is that right? > > > > Thanks, > > Omair > > > -- Andrew :) Senior Free Java Software Engineer Red Hat, Inc. (http://www.redhat.com) PGP Key: ed25519/35964222 (hkp://keys.gnupg.net) Fingerprint = 5132 579D D154 0ED2 3E04 C5A0 CFDA 0F9B 3596 4222 PGP Key: rsa4096/248BDC07 (hkp://keys.gnupg.net) Fingerprint = EC5A 1F5E C0AD 1D15 8F1F 8F91 3B96 A578 248B DC07 From sean.coffey at oracle.com Tue Sep 8 12:03:50 2015 From: sean.coffey at oracle.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Se=c3=a1n_Coffey?=) Date: Tue, 8 Sep 2015 13:03:50 +0100 Subject: [8u-dev] Request for approval : 8029020: Check src/share/native/java/util/zip code for JNI pending exceptions Message-ID: <55EECEA6.5020702@oracle.com> I'd like to backport 8029020 to jdk8u-dev. The JDK 9 fix applies cleanly with the exception of copyright years. review thread : http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/core-libs-dev/2014-February/024838.html JDK 9 changeset link : http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk9/jdk9/jdk/rev/e86f192ae6b8 -- Regards, Sean. From rob.mckenna at oracle.com Tue Sep 8 12:43:49 2015 From: rob.mckenna at oracle.com (Rob McKenna) Date: Tue, 8 Sep 2015 13:43:49 +0100 Subject: [8u-dev] Request for approval : 8029020: Check src/share/native/java/util/zip code for JNI pending exceptions In-Reply-To: <55EECEA6.5020702@oracle.com> References: <55EECEA6.5020702@oracle.com> Message-ID: <55EED805.6040805@oracle.com> Approved -Rob On 08/09/15 13:03, Se?n Coffey wrote: > I'd like to backport 8029020 to jdk8u-dev. The JDK 9 fix applies cleanly > with the exception of copyright years. > > review thread : > http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/core-libs-dev/2014-February/024838.html > > JDK 9 changeset link : > http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk9/jdk9/jdk/rev/e86f192ae6b8 > From rob.mckenna at oracle.com Tue Sep 8 14:43:38 2015 From: rob.mckenna at oracle.com (Rob McKenna) Date: Tue, 8 Sep 2015 15:43:38 +0100 Subject: [8u-communication] JDK 8u60 released today! (and 8u72 timeline) In-Reply-To: <1481269188.6802904.1441653339608.JavaMail.zimbra@redhat.com> References: <55D38411.7080002@oracle.com> <2132082391.12414344.1439997153546.JavaMail.zimbra@redhat.com> <55D4BC2F.3010407@oracle.com> <20150904212142.GD7303@redhat.com> <55ED9FD2.1010800@oracle.com> <1481269188.6802904.1441653339608.JavaMail.zimbra@redhat.com> Message-ID: <55EEF41A.5000000@oracle.com> Since moving to the new process[0] where a regular JDK 8 Update is released in parallel with a JDK 8 Critical Patch Update (CPU), it's impossible to share a true snapshot of the final JDK 8 Update forest until GA has occurred. That's due to the vulnerability fixes which need to be integrated into the update forest prior to GA. Such integrations are currently happening at the RDP2 milestone. If you want to recreate the current state of a release in RDP2 (less vulnerability fixes) then you will need to maintain your own forest. Thankfully the number of applicable fixes post-RDP2 should be relatively low. (2 in the case of your example [1]) Generally a simple hg export / import should be all that is required to take fixes from jdk8u and transplant them into your new forest. -Rob [0] http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/jdk8u-dev/2015-July/003985.html [1] https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/issues/?jql=project%20%3D%20JDK%20AND%20fixVersion%20%3D%208u66%20and%20resolution%20%3D%20fixed%20and%20%20%22Resolved%20In%20Build%22%20not%20in%20%28b01%2C%20b02%29%20%20and%20%28labels%20is%20EMPTY%20or%20labels%20!%3D%20hgupdate-sync%29%20%20and%20level%20is%20EMPTY On 07/09/15 20:15, Andrew Hughes wrote: > ----- Original Message ----- >> Approved changesets are available in the always open forest so >> reproducing the state of a post-rdp2 release shouldn't be very difficult. >> >> Any fixes that go into a release post-RDP2 will have a corresponding JBS >> backport. If you search JBS for a fixVersion of 8uXX (and a resolved in >> build value >= to the RDP2 build) you'll see a list of fixes approved >> for that release. > > Ok, so let me see if I understand this correctly. > > If I want to re-create, say, jdk8u66-b03, I would have to check out > jdk8u66-b02 from http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk8u/jdk8u and friends, > then go through the OpenJDK bug database and find every bug that > was fixed in jdk8u66-b03 (e.g. [0]), then find out what the original > bug ID is for each one, then backport all the changesets? > > Then, for jdk8u66-b04, I have to do the same again and so on. > > This seems unnecessarily convoluted and prone to error. Why not just > make the trees available as before? > > [0] https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/issues/?jql=project%20%3D%20JDK%20AND%20status%20%3D%20Resolved%20AND%20%22Resolved%20In%20Build%22%20in%20%28b02%2C%20b03%29%20AND%20fixVersion%20%3D%208u66%20ORDER%20BY%20priority%20DESC > >> >> -Rob >> >> On 04/09/15 22:21, Omair Majid wrote: >>> Hi Rob, >>> >>> * Rob McKenna [2015-08-19 13:26]: >>>> Some folks may be wondering how they get fixes pushed into 8u66 so >>>> just to reiterate, all you have to do is follow the critical approval >>>> process [1] and the maintainers will take care of the rest! >>> >>> I am hoping I am misreading or misinterpreting some of this because it >>> sounds to me like you are saying that the community can't see what fixes >>> a future 8uXY release contains until it is tagged and released on the >>> day of the release (which coincides with the day of the CPU). What I >>> understand is that we can still ask for changesets to be backported but >>> we can't actually see/test/fix the 8u66 trees until a release is "done"? >>> And the same will happen for the 8u72 release after this October so we >>> can't see/test/fix what-really-is-8u72 ether after October? >>> >>> Is that right? >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Omair >>> >> > From omajid at redhat.com Tue Sep 8 16:48:46 2015 From: omajid at redhat.com (Omair Majid) Date: Tue, 8 Sep 2015 12:48:46 -0400 Subject: [8u-communication] JDK 8u60 released today! (and 8u72 timeline) In-Reply-To: <55EEF41A.5000000@oracle.com> References: <55D38411.7080002@oracle.com> <2132082391.12414344.1439997153546.JavaMail.zimbra@redhat.com> <55D4BC2F.3010407@oracle.com> <20150904212142.GD7303@redhat.com> <55ED9FD2.1010800@oracle.com> <1481269188.6802904.1441653339608.JavaMail.zimbra@redhat.com> <55EEF41A.5000000@oracle.com> Message-ID: <20150908164845.GB3460@redhat.com> Hi Rob, * Rob McKenna [2015-09-08 10:43]: > Since moving to the new process[0] where a regular JDK 8 Update is released > in parallel with a JDK 8 Critical Patch Update (CPU), it's impossible to > share a true snapshot of the final JDK 8 Update forest until GA has > occurred. That's due to the vulnerability fixes which need to be integrated > into the update forest prior to GA. Such integrations are currently > happening at the RDP2 milestone. > > If you want to recreate the current state of a release in RDP2 (less > vulnerability fixes) then you will need to maintain your own forest. Thanks for clarifying this. Not being able to access the actual trees isn't great, but I can see that the other option (publishing the trees with vulnerability fixes) is completely out of question. Thanks, Omair -- PGP Key: 66484681 (http://pgp.mit.edu/) Fingerprint = F072 555B 0A17 3957 4E95 0056 F286 F14F 6648 4681 From omajid at redhat.com Tue Sep 8 17:02:41 2015 From: omajid at redhat.com (Omair Majid) Date: Tue, 8 Sep 2015 13:02:41 -0400 Subject: [8u-communication] JDK 8u60 released today! (and 8u72 timeline) In-Reply-To: <55EEF41A.5000000@oracle.com> References: <55D38411.7080002@oracle.com> <2132082391.12414344.1439997153546.JavaMail.zimbra@redhat.com> <55D4BC2F.3010407@oracle.com> <20150904212142.GD7303@redhat.com> <55ED9FD2.1010800@oracle.com> <1481269188.6802904.1441653339608.JavaMail.zimbra@redhat.com> <55EEF41A.5000000@oracle.com> Message-ID: <20150908170241.GC3460@redhat.com> * Rob McKenna [2015-09-08 10:43]: > [1] https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/issues/?jql=project%20%3D%20JDK%20AND%20fixVersion%20%3D%208u66%20and%20resolution%20%3D%20fixed%20and%20%20%22Resolved%20In%20Build%22%20not%20in%20%28b01%2C%20b02%29%20%20and%20%28labels%20is%20EMPTY%20or%20labels%20!%3D%20hgupdate-sync%29%20%20and%20level%20is%20EMPTY What does the 'hgupdate-sync' label mean? If I remove it from the above query, I see about ~30 results: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/issues/?jql=project%20=%20JDK%20AND%20fixVersion%20=%208u66%20and%20resolution%20=%20fixed%20and%20%20"Resolved%20In%20Build"%20not%20in%20(b01,%20b02) Thanks, Omair -- PGP Key: 66484681 (http://pgp.mit.edu/) Fingerprint = F072 555B 0A17 3957 4E95 0056 F286 F14F 6648 4681 From rob.mckenna at oracle.com Tue Sep 8 17:24:31 2015 From: rob.mckenna at oracle.com (Rob McKenna) Date: Tue, 8 Sep 2015 18:24:31 +0100 Subject: [8u-communication] JDK 8u60 released today! (and 8u72 timeline) In-Reply-To: <20150908170241.GC3460@redhat.com> References: <55D38411.7080002@oracle.com> <2132082391.12414344.1439997153546.JavaMail.zimbra@redhat.com> <55D4BC2F.3010407@oracle.com> <20150904212142.GD7303@redhat.com> <55ED9FD2.1010800@oracle.com> <1481269188.6802904.1441653339608.JavaMail.zimbra@redhat.com> <55EEF41A.5000000@oracle.com> <20150908170241.GC3460@redhat.com> Message-ID: <55EF19CF.8060608@oracle.com> The 'hgupdate-sync' label is used to denote bug records which are already fixed in a previous release. When code lines get synced up, hgupdater will often create a new fix record to capture the sync activity. For the most part, such records can be ignored since they were fixed in a previous (8u) release. -Rob On 08/09/15 18:02, Omair Majid wrote: > * Rob McKenna [2015-09-08 10:43]: >> [1] https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/issues/?jql=project%20%3D%20JDK%20AND%20fixVersion%20%3D%208u66%20and%20resolution%20%3D%20fixed%20and%20%20%22Resolved%20In%20Build%22%20not%20in%20%28b01%2C%20b02%29%20%20and%20%28labels%20is%20EMPTY%20or%20labels%20!%3D%20hgupdate-sync%29%20%20and%20level%20is%20EMPTY > > What does the 'hgupdate-sync' label mean? If I remove it from the above > query, I see about ~30 results: > > https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/issues/?jql=project%20=%20JDK%20AND%20fixVersion%20=%208u66%20and%20resolution%20=%20fixed%20and%20%20"Resolved%20In%20Build"%20not%20in%20(b01,%20b02) > > Thanks, > Omair > From omajid at redhat.com Tue Sep 8 17:46:48 2015 From: omajid at redhat.com (Omair Majid) Date: Tue, 8 Sep 2015 13:46:48 -0400 Subject: [8u-communication] JDK 8u60 released today! (and 8u72 timeline) In-Reply-To: <55EF19CF.8060608@oracle.com> References: <55D38411.7080002@oracle.com> <2132082391.12414344.1439997153546.JavaMail.zimbra@redhat.com> <55D4BC2F.3010407@oracle.com> <20150904212142.GD7303@redhat.com> <55ED9FD2.1010800@oracle.com> <1481269188.6802904.1441653339608.JavaMail.zimbra@redhat.com> <55EEF41A.5000000@oracle.com> <20150908170241.GC3460@redhat.com> <55EF19CF.8060608@oracle.com> Message-ID: <20150908174648.GE3460@redhat.com> Hi, * Rob McKenna [2015-09-08 13:24]: > The 'hgupdate-sync' label is used to denote bug records which are already > fixed in a previous release. When code lines get synced up, hgupdater will > often create a new fix record to capture the sync activity. For the most > part, such records can be ignored since they were fixed in a previous (8u) > release. Thanks! Is there a place on the wiki or something where we could document this to make it clearer for others? Thanks, Omair -- PGP Key: 66484681 (http://pgp.mit.edu/) Fingerprint = F072 555B 0A17 3957 4E95 0056 F286 F14F 6648 4681 From ivan.gerasimov at oracle.com Wed Sep 9 16:39:29 2015 From: ivan.gerasimov at oracle.com (Ivan Gerasimov) Date: Wed, 9 Sep 2015 19:39:29 +0300 Subject: [8u-dev] Request for review and for approval to backport: 8072466: Deadlock when initializing MulticastSocket and DatagramSocket Message-ID: <55F060C1.4060003@oracle.com> Hello! I'd like to backport this recent fix from jdk9 to jdk8u-dev. The fix applies *almost* cleanly after unshuffling. The only manual editing I had to do was creating Java_java_net_DualStackPlainDatagramSocketImpl_initIDs() function in DualStackPlainDatagramSocketImpl.c, which didn't exist in jdk8. All the other changes are the same as in jdk9. Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8072466 Jdk9 change: http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk9/dev/jdk/rev/3884ca98c792 Jdk9 review: http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/core-libs-dev/2015-September/035053.html Jdk8 webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~igerasim/8072466/01/webrev/ Would you please review/approve it? Sincerely yours, Ivan From anton.litvinov at oracle.com Wed Sep 9 18:13:54 2015 From: anton.litvinov at oracle.com (Anton Litvinov) Date: Wed, 9 Sep 2015 21:13:54 +0300 Subject: [8u-dev] Request for approval for CR 8081485: EDT auto shutdown is broken in case of new event queue usage Message-ID: <55F076E2.4000206@oracle.com> Hello, I would like to request for approval to push a backport of the fix from JDK 9 to JDK 8. The backport fix is identical to the original fix. Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8081485 JDK 9 changeset: http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk9/client/jdk/rev/873342a31dee JDK 9 review thread: Approval 1 - http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/awt-dev/2015-September/009924.html Approval 2 - http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/awt-dev/2015-September/009943.html Approval 2 (additional confirmation) - http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/awt-dev/2015-September/009947.html Reviewers: serb, alexp The patch from JDK 9 applies cleanly after correction of file path. Thank you, Anton From rob.mckenna at oracle.com Wed Sep 9 19:44:21 2015 From: rob.mckenna at oracle.com (Rob McKenna) Date: Wed, 9 Sep 2015 20:44:21 +0100 Subject: [8u-dev] Request for approval for CR 8081485: EDT auto shutdown is broken in case of new event queue usage In-Reply-To: <55F076E2.4000206@oracle.com> References: <55F076E2.4000206@oracle.com> Message-ID: <55F08C15.1070501@oracle.com> Approved. -Rob On 09/09/15 19:13, Anton Litvinov wrote: > Hello, > > I would like to request for approval to push a backport of the fix from > JDK 9 to JDK 8. The backport fix is identical to the original fix. > > Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8081485 > JDK 9 changeset: > http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk9/client/jdk/rev/873342a31dee > JDK 9 review thread: > Approval 1 - > http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/awt-dev/2015-September/009924.html > Approval 2 - > http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/awt-dev/2015-September/009943.html > Approval 2 (additional confirmation) - > http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/awt-dev/2015-September/009947.html > Reviewers: serb, alexp > > The patch from JDK 9 applies cleanly after correction of file path. > > Thank you, > Anton From sundararajan.athijegannathan at oracle.com Thu Sep 10 08:17:32 2015 From: sundararajan.athijegannathan at oracle.com (Sundararajan Athijegannathan) Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2015 13:47:32 +0530 Subject: [8u] approval request for 8027137, 8087292 and 8130888 Message-ID: <55F13C9C.1000302@oracle.com> Please approve the backport of the following fixes: Bugs: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8027137 https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8087292 https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8130888 jdk9 review threads: http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/nashorn-dev/2015-September/005166.html http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/nashorn-dev/2015-September/005144.html http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/nashorn-dev/2015-July/004914.html jdk8u webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~sundar/8027137_8087292_8130888/8u/webrev.00/ Mostly backported "as is" except for modular layout difference and one manual diff applied on ScriptClassInfoCollector.java as diffs on that class won't apply automatically (due to another ASM version fix changes - which is not backported to jdk8u - as that is not applicable to 8u). http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~sundar/8027137_8087292_8130888/8u/webrev.00/buildtools/nasgen/src/jdk/nashorn/internal/tools/nasgen/ScriptClassInfoCollector.java.udiff.html CC'ing nashorn team as well. Thanks, -Sundar From hannes.wallnoefer at oracle.com Thu Sep 10 09:04:25 2015 From: hannes.wallnoefer at oracle.com (Hannes Wallnoefer) Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2015 11:04:25 +0200 Subject: [8u] approval request for 8027137, 8087292 and 8130888 In-Reply-To: <55F13C9C.1000302@oracle.com> References: <55F13C9C.1000302@oracle.com> Message-ID: <55F14799.80406@oracle.com> The backport looks good to me. Hannes Am 2015-09-10 um 10:17 schrieb Sundararajan Athijegannathan: > Please approve the backport of the following fixes: > > Bugs: > > https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8027137 > https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8087292 > https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8130888 > > jdk9 review threads: > > http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/nashorn-dev/2015-September/005166.html > > http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/nashorn-dev/2015-September/005144.html > > http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/nashorn-dev/2015-July/004914.html > > jdk8u webrev: > > http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~sundar/8027137_8087292_8130888/8u/webrev.00/ > > Mostly backported "as is" except for modular layout difference and one > manual diff applied on ScriptClassInfoCollector.java as diffs on that > class won't apply automatically (due to another ASM version fix > changes - which is not backported to jdk8u - as that is not applicable > to 8u). > > http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~sundar/8027137_8087292_8130888/8u/webrev.00/buildtools/nasgen/src/jdk/nashorn/internal/tools/nasgen/ScriptClassInfoCollector.java.udiff.html > > > CC'ing nashorn team as well. > > Thanks, > -Sundar From attila.szegedi at oracle.com Thu Sep 10 09:05:32 2015 From: attila.szegedi at oracle.com (Attila Szegedi) Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2015 11:05:32 +0200 Subject: [8u] approval request for 8027137, 8087292 and 8130888 In-Reply-To: <55F13C9C.1000302@oracle.com> References: <55F13C9C.1000302@oracle.com> Message-ID: +1 on the backport with its trivial changes. > On Sep 10, 2015, at 10:17 AM, Sundararajan Athijegannathan wrote: > > Please approve the backport of the following fixes: > > Bugs: > > https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8027137 > https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8087292 > https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8130888 > > jdk9 review threads: > > http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/nashorn-dev/2015-September/005166.html > http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/nashorn-dev/2015-September/005144.html > http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/nashorn-dev/2015-July/004914.html > > jdk8u webrev: > > http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~sundar/8027137_8087292_8130888/8u/webrev.00/ > > Mostly backported "as is" except for modular layout difference and one manual diff applied on ScriptClassInfoCollector.java as diffs on that class won't apply automatically (due to another ASM version fix changes - which is not backported to jdk8u - as that is not applicable to 8u). > > http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~sundar/8027137_8087292_8130888/8u/webrev.00/buildtools/nasgen/src/jdk/nashorn/internal/tools/nasgen/ScriptClassInfoCollector.java.udiff.html > > CC'ing nashorn team as well. > > Thanks, > -Sundar From rob.mckenna at oracle.com Thu Sep 10 11:29:25 2015 From: rob.mckenna at oracle.com (Rob McKenna) Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2015 12:29:25 +0100 Subject: [8u] approval request for 8027137, 8087292 and 8130888 In-Reply-To: <55F13C9C.1000302@oracle.com> References: <55F13C9C.1000302@oracle.com> Message-ID: <55F16995.6090702@oracle.com> Approved -Rob On 10/09/15 09:17, Sundararajan Athijegannathan wrote: > Please approve the backport of the following fixes: > > Bugs: > > https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8027137 > https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8087292 > https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8130888 > > jdk9 review threads: > > http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/nashorn-dev/2015-September/005166.html > > http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/nashorn-dev/2015-September/005144.html > > http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/nashorn-dev/2015-July/004914.html > > jdk8u webrev: > > http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~sundar/8027137_8087292_8130888/8u/webrev.00/ > > Mostly backported "as is" except for modular layout difference and one > manual diff applied on ScriptClassInfoCollector.java as diffs on that > class won't apply automatically (due to another ASM version fix changes > - which is not backported to jdk8u - as that is not applicable to 8u). > > http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~sundar/8027137_8087292_8130888/8u/webrev.00/buildtools/nasgen/src/jdk/nashorn/internal/tools/nasgen/ScriptClassInfoCollector.java.udiff.html > > > CC'ing nashorn team as well. > > Thanks, > -Sundar From attila.szegedi at oracle.com Thu Sep 10 13:37:59 2015 From: attila.szegedi at oracle.com (Attila Szegedi) Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2015 15:37:59 +0200 Subject: [8u-dev] Request for Approval: 8135337: NativeDebug.dumpCounters with incorrect scope count Message-ID: Please approve. Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8135337 jdk9 webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~attila/8135337/webrev.jdk9 jdk9 review thread: http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/nashorn-dev/2015-September/005200.html Changes apply cleanly to jdk8u-dev after path reshuffling from modular source code layout. Thanks, Attila. From ivan.gerasimov at oracle.com Thu Sep 10 13:54:36 2015 From: ivan.gerasimov at oracle.com (Ivan Gerasimov) Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2015 16:54:36 +0300 Subject: [8u-dev] Request for review and for approval to backport: 8080115: (fs) Crash in libgio when calling Files.probeContentType(path) from parallel threads Message-ID: <55F18B9C.8090602@oracle.com> Hello! Would you please approve the *almost* direct backport of the fix from jdk 9 to 8u? The patch didn't apply automatically due to renaming of a function. Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8080115 Jdk9 change: http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk9/jdk9/jdk/rev/fe002a83ba79 Jdk9 review: http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/nio-dev/2015-August/003257.html Jdk8u webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~igerasim/8080115/00/webrev/ The patched jdk was built/tested on all supported platforms. Sincerely yours, Ivan From sean.coffey at oracle.com Thu Sep 10 14:08:27 2015 From: sean.coffey at oracle.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Se=c3=a1n_Coffey?=) Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2015 15:08:27 +0100 Subject: [8u-dev] Request for review and for approval to backport: 8072466: Deadlock when initializing MulticastSocket and DatagramSocket In-Reply-To: <55F060C1.4060003@oracle.com> References: <55F060C1.4060003@oracle.com> Message-ID: <55F18EDB.7030806@oracle.com> These changes look fine to me Ivan. Approved for jdk8u-dev. Regards, Sean. On 09/09/2015 17:39, Ivan Gerasimov wrote: > Hello! > > I'd like to backport this recent fix from jdk9 to jdk8u-dev. > The fix applies *almost* cleanly after unshuffling. > The only manual editing I had to do was creating > Java_java_net_DualStackPlainDatagramSocketImpl_initIDs() function in > DualStackPlainDatagramSocketImpl.c, which didn't exist in jdk8. > All the other changes are the same as in jdk9. > > Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8072466 > Jdk9 change: http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk9/dev/jdk/rev/3884ca98c792 > Jdk9 review: > http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/core-libs-dev/2015-September/035053.html > > Jdk8 webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~igerasim/8072466/01/webrev/ > > Would you please review/approve it? > > Sincerely yours, > Ivan From sean.coffey at oracle.com Thu Sep 10 14:10:10 2015 From: sean.coffey at oracle.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Se=c3=a1n_Coffey?=) Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2015 15:10:10 +0100 Subject: [8u-dev] Request for review and for approval to backport: 8080115: (fs) Crash in libgio when calling Files.probeContentType(path) from parallel threads In-Reply-To: <55F18B9C.8090602@oracle.com> References: <55F18B9C.8090602@oracle.com> Message-ID: <55F18F42.2010806@oracle.com> Looks fine. Approved. Regards, Sean. On 10/09/2015 14:54, Ivan Gerasimov wrote: > Hello! > > Would you please approve the *almost* direct backport of the fix from > jdk 9 to 8u? > The patch didn't apply automatically due to renaming of a function. > > Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8080115 > Jdk9 change: http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk9/jdk9/jdk/rev/fe002a83ba79 > Jdk9 review: > http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/nio-dev/2015-August/003257.html > > Jdk8u webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~igerasim/8080115/00/webrev/ > > The patched jdk was built/tested on all supported platforms. > > Sincerely yours, > Ivan > From sean.coffey at oracle.com Thu Sep 10 14:11:38 2015 From: sean.coffey at oracle.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Se=c3=a1n_Coffey?=) Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2015 15:11:38 +0100 Subject: [8u-dev] Request for Approval: 8135337: NativeDebug.dumpCounters with incorrect scope count In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <55F18F9A.4030109@oracle.com> Please add a suitable noreg- label to the bug report. Approved. Regards, Sean. On 10/09/2015 14:37, Attila Szegedi wrote: > Please approve. > > Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8135337 > jdk9 webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~attila/8135337/webrev.jdk9 > jdk9 review thread: http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/nashorn-dev/2015-September/005200.html > > Changes apply cleanly to jdk8u-dev after path reshuffling from modular source code layout. > > Thanks, > Attila. From sundararajan.athijegannathan at oracle.com Fri Sep 11 11:23:00 2015 From: sundararajan.athijegannathan at oracle.com (Sundararajan Athijegannathan) Date: Fri, 11 Sep 2015 16:53:00 +0530 Subject: [8u] approval request for 8135332: ScriptFunction constructor should use is bound and is strict check rather than checking for 'arguments' and 'caller' Message-ID: <55F2B994.9090300@oracle.com> Please approve. Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8135332 jdk8u webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~sundar/8135332/8u/webrev.00/ jdk9 review thread: http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/nashorn-dev/2015-September/005195.html Backported 'as is' except for modular source layout difference. Thanks, -Sundar From sean.coffey at oracle.com Fri Sep 11 12:08:23 2015 From: sean.coffey at oracle.com (=?UTF-8?B?U2XDoW4gQ29mZmV5?=) Date: Fri, 11 Sep 2015 13:08:23 +0100 Subject: [8u] approval request for 8135332: ScriptFunction constructor should use is bound and is strict check rather than checking for 'arguments' and 'caller' In-Reply-To: <55F2B994.9090300@oracle.com> References: <55F2B994.9090300@oracle.com> Message-ID: <55F2C437.5000300@oracle.com> Approved. Regards, Sean. On 11/09/15 12:23, Sundararajan Athijegannathan wrote: > Please approve. > > Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8135332 > jdk8u webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~sundar/8135332/8u/webrev.00/ > jdk9 review thread: > http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/nashorn-dev/2015-September/005195.html > > Backported 'as is' except for modular source layout difference. > > Thanks, > -Sundar From sundararajan.athijegannathan at oracle.com Fri Sep 11 14:50:52 2015 From: sundararajan.athijegannathan at oracle.com (Sundararajan Athijegannathan) Date: Fri, 11 Sep 2015 20:20:52 +0530 Subject: [8u] approval request for 8136349: Typos patch for nashorn sources submitted on Sep 10, 2015 Message-ID: <55F2EA4C.7080102@oracle.com> Please approve. Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8136349 jdk9 review thread: http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/nashorn-dev/2015-September/005213.html jdk8u webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~sundar/8136349/8u/webrev.00/ I had to apply patch manually but ignore diffs the files that are not present in jdk8u (eg. jdk.nashorn.api.tree.* files). Other than that except for modular layout difference, diff is same. Thanks, -Sundar From sundararajan.athijegannathan at oracle.com Fri Sep 11 14:51:05 2015 From: sundararajan.athijegannathan at oracle.com (Sundararajan Athijegannathan) Date: Fri, 11 Sep 2015 20:21:05 +0530 Subject: [8u] approval request for 8136349: Typos patch for nashorn sources submitted on Sep 10, 2015 Message-ID: <55F2EA59.6030005@oracle.com> Please approve. Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8136349 jdk9 review thread: http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/nashorn-dev/2015-September/005213.html jdk8u webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~sundar/8136349/8u/webrev.00/ I had to apply patch manually but ignore diffs on the files that are not present in jdk8u (eg. jdk.nashorn.api.tree.* files). Other than that except for modular layout difference, diff is same. Thanks, -Sundar From attila.szegedi at oracle.com Fri Sep 11 15:27:32 2015 From: attila.szegedi at oracle.com (Attila Szegedi) Date: Fri, 11 Sep 2015 17:27:32 +0200 Subject: [8u] approval request for 8136349: Typos patch for nashorn sources submitted on Sep 10, 2015 In-Reply-To: <55F2EA59.6030005@oracle.com> References: <55F2EA59.6030005@oracle.com> Message-ID: <6F3BB7E6-18B7-4BE7-AFF8-276FDA9E3F01@oracle.com> +1 on the backported changes > On Sep 11, 2015, at 4:51 PM, Sundararajan Athijegannathan wrote: > > Please approve. > > Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8136349 > jdk9 review thread: http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/nashorn-dev/2015-September/005213.html > jdk8u webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~sundar/8136349/8u/webrev.00/ > > I had to apply patch manually but ignore diffs on the files that are not present in jdk8u (eg. jdk.nashorn.api.tree.* files). Other than that except for modular layout difference, diff is same. > > Thanks, > -Sundar From sean.coffey at oracle.com Fri Sep 11 15:29:43 2015 From: sean.coffey at oracle.com (=?windows-1252?Q?Se=E1n_Coffey?=) Date: Fri, 11 Sep 2015 16:29:43 +0100 Subject: [8u] approval request for 8136349: Typos patch for nashorn sources submitted on Sep 10, 2015 In-Reply-To: <6F3BB7E6-18B7-4BE7-AFF8-276FDA9E3F01@oracle.com> References: <55F2EA59.6030005@oracle.com> <6F3BB7E6-18B7-4BE7-AFF8-276FDA9E3F01@oracle.com> Message-ID: <55F2F367.8080302@oracle.com> Approved. Regards, Sean. On 11/09/15 16:27, Attila Szegedi wrote: > +1 on the backported changes > >> On Sep 11, 2015, at 4:51 PM, Sundararajan Athijegannathan wrote: >> >> Please approve. >> >> Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8136349 >> jdk9 review thread: http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/nashorn-dev/2015-September/005213.html >> jdk8u webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~sundar/8136349/8u/webrev.00/ >> >> I had to apply patch manually but ignore diffs on the files that are not present in jdk8u (eg. jdk.nashorn.api.tree.* files). Other than that except for modular layout difference, diff is same. >> >> Thanks, >> -Sundar From zoltan.majo at oracle.com Mon Sep 14 14:31:54 2015 From: zoltan.majo at oracle.com (=?UTF-8?B?Wm9sdMOhbiBNYWrDsw==?=) Date: Mon, 14 Sep 2015 16:31:54 +0200 Subject: [8u-dev] Request for approval: Backport of 8011858 Message-ID: <55F6DA5A.6050205@oracle.com> Hi, I would like to request the backport of the fix for JDK-8011858 to 8u-dev. The fix can help reducing the memory usage of the C2 compiler and is therefore needed to fix JDK-8129847. Original (9) bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8011858 Original changeset: http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk9/hs-comp/hotspot/rev/af60f1cb36f2 Unfortunately, the fix does not apply cleanly, as two affected files are different in 9 and in 8u-dev. Here are the changes that I did not (could not) apply to the 8u-dev tree: - http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk9/hs-comp/hotspot/rev/af60f1cb36f2#l6.8 - http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk9/hs-comp/hotspot/rev/af60f1cb36f2#l9.8 Webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~zmajo/8011858_8u/webrev.00/ Testing: - the fix was pushed into 9 on Aug 11 and did not cause any nightly failures; - all JPRT tests pass; - all JTREG tests pass that pass with the unmodified VM. Thank you and best regards, Zoltan From sean.coffey at oracle.com Mon Sep 14 14:54:19 2015 From: sean.coffey at oracle.com (=?UTF-8?B?U2XDoW4gQ29mZmV5?=) Date: Mon, 14 Sep 2015 15:54:19 +0100 Subject: [8u-dev] Request for approval: Backport of 8011858 In-Reply-To: <55F6DA5A.6050205@oracle.com> References: <55F6DA5A.6050205@oracle.com> Message-ID: <55F6DF9B.2030204@oracle.com> Please get a peer review before pushing to the jdk8u-dev forest. Looks like the bug report also needs a noreg label [1] Approved. [1] http://openjdk.java.net/guide/changePlanning.html#noreg Regards, Sean. On 14/09/15 15:31, Zolt?n Maj? wrote: > Hi, > > > I would like to request the backport of the fix for JDK-8011858 to > 8u-dev. The fix can help reducing the memory usage of the C2 compiler > and is therefore needed to fix JDK-8129847. > > Original (9) bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8011858 > Original changeset: > http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk9/hs-comp/hotspot/rev/af60f1cb36f2 > > Unfortunately, the fix does not apply cleanly, as two affected files > are different in 9 and in 8u-dev. Here are the changes that I did not > (could not) apply to the 8u-dev tree: > - http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk9/hs-comp/hotspot/rev/af60f1cb36f2#l6.8 > - http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk9/hs-comp/hotspot/rev/af60f1cb36f2#l9.8 > > Webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~zmajo/8011858_8u/webrev.00/ > > Testing: > - the fix was pushed into 9 on Aug 11 and did not cause any nightly > failures; > - all JPRT tests pass; > - all JTREG tests pass that pass with the unmodified VM. > > Thank you and best regards, > > > Zoltan > From zoltan.majo at oracle.com Mon Sep 14 14:58:49 2015 From: zoltan.majo at oracle.com (=?UTF-8?B?Wm9sdMOhbiBNYWrDsw==?=) Date: Mon, 14 Sep 2015 16:58:49 +0200 Subject: [8u-dev] Request for approval: Backport of 8011858 In-Reply-To: <55F6DF9B.2030204@oracle.com> References: <55F6DA5A.6050205@oracle.com> <55F6DF9B.2030204@oracle.com> Message-ID: <55F6E0A9.1030006@oracle.com> Hi Se?n, On 09/14/2015 04:54 PM, Se?n Coffey wrote: > Please get a peer review before pushing to the jdk8u-dev forest. I will do so. > Looks like the bug report also needs a noreg label [1] I added the "noreg-hard" label. > > Approved. Thank you for the review! Best regards, Zolt?n > > [1] http://openjdk.java.net/guide/changePlanning.html#noreg > > Regards, > Sean. > > On 14/09/15 15:31, Zolt?n Maj? wrote: >> Hi, >> >> >> I would like to request the backport of the fix for JDK-8011858 to >> 8u-dev. The fix can help reducing the memory usage of the C2 compiler >> and is therefore needed to fix JDK-8129847. >> >> Original (9) bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8011858 >> Original changeset: >> http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk9/hs-comp/hotspot/rev/af60f1cb36f2 >> >> Unfortunately, the fix does not apply cleanly, as two affected files >> are different in 9 and in 8u-dev. Here are the changes that I did not >> (could not) apply to the 8u-dev tree: >> - http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk9/hs-comp/hotspot/rev/af60f1cb36f2#l6.8 >> - http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk9/hs-comp/hotspot/rev/af60f1cb36f2#l9.8 >> >> Webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~zmajo/8011858_8u/webrev.00/ >> >> Testing: >> - the fix was pushed into 9 on Aug 11 and did not cause any nightly >> failures; >> - all JPRT tests pass; >> - all JTREG tests pass that pass with the unmodified VM. >> >> Thank you and best regards, >> >> >> Zoltan >> > From jan.lahoda at oracle.com Mon Sep 14 15:50:40 2015 From: jan.lahoda at oracle.com (Jan Lahoda) Date: Mon, 14 Sep 2015 17:50:40 +0200 Subject: [8u-60] request for review and approval to backport JDK-8067422: Lambda method names are unnecessarily unstable In-Reply-To: <54DD181C.30206@oracle.com> References: <54DD181C.30206@oracle.com> Message-ID: <55F6ECD0.9000504@oracle.com> Hello, I'd like to ask for a review and an approval to backport the following fix to 8u-dev: Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8067422 jdk9 fix: http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk9/jdk9/langtools/rev/d386dce997f6 The patch applies cleanly to 8u-dev, but the test depends on test framework that is not in 8u-dev and would fail. So I had to rewrite the test to avoid that dependency. The webrev of the updated patch against 8u-dev is here: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~jlahoda/8067422-8/webrev.00/ Thanks, Jan From vicente.romero at oracle.com Mon Sep 14 18:16:31 2015 From: vicente.romero at oracle.com (Vicente-Arturo Romero-Zaldivar) Date: Mon, 14 Sep 2015 11:16:31 -0700 Subject: [8u-60] request for review and approval to backport JDK-8067422: Lambda method names are unnecessarily unstable In-Reply-To: <55F6ECD0.9000504@oracle.com> References: <54DD181C.30206@oracle.com> <55F6ECD0.9000504@oracle.com> Message-ID: <55F70EFF.3020500@oracle.com> Approved, Side comment, if we see many cases like this in the future we can consider backporting ToolBox to 8. Thanks, Vicente On 09/14/2015 08:50 AM, Jan Lahoda wrote: > Hello, > > I'd like to ask for a review and an approval to backport the following > fix to 8u-dev: > > Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8067422 > jdk9 fix: http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk9/jdk9/langtools/rev/d386dce997f6 > > The patch applies cleanly to 8u-dev, but the test depends on test > framework that is not in 8u-dev and would fail. So I had to rewrite > the test to avoid that dependency. The webrev of the updated patch > against 8u-dev is here: > http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~jlahoda/8067422-8/webrev.00/ > > Thanks, > Jan From rob.mckenna at oracle.com Mon Sep 14 19:30:54 2015 From: rob.mckenna at oracle.com (Rob McKenna) Date: Mon, 14 Sep 2015 20:30:54 +0100 Subject: [8u-dev] request for review and approval to backport JDK-8067422: Lambda method names are unnecessarily unstable In-Reply-To: <55F70EFF.3020500@oracle.com> References: <54DD181C.30206@oracle.com> <55F6ECD0.9000504@oracle.com> <55F70EFF.3020500@oracle.com> Message-ID: <55F7206E.2000909@oracle.com> Approved for push to 8u-dev - you're a little late for 8u60 :) (subject updated) -Rob On 14/09/15 19:16, Vicente-Arturo Romero-Zaldivar wrote: > Approved, > > Side comment, if we see many cases like this in the future we can > consider backporting ToolBox to 8. > > Thanks, > Vicente > > On 09/14/2015 08:50 AM, Jan Lahoda wrote: >> Hello, >> >> I'd like to ask for a review and an approval to backport the following >> fix to 8u-dev: >> >> Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8067422 >> jdk9 fix: http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk9/jdk9/langtools/rev/d386dce997f6 >> >> The patch applies cleanly to 8u-dev, but the test depends on test >> framework that is not in 8u-dev and would fail. So I had to rewrite >> the test to avoid that dependency. The webrev of the updated patch >> against 8u-dev is here: >> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~jlahoda/8067422-8/webrev.00/ >> >> Thanks, >> Jan > From sundararajan.athijegannathan at oracle.com Tue Sep 15 05:27:02 2015 From: sundararajan.athijegannathan at oracle.com (Sundararajan Athijegannathan) Date: Tue, 15 Sep 2015 10:57:02 +0530 Subject: [8u] approval request for 8055917: jdk.nashorn.internal.codegen.CompilationPhase$N should be renamed to proper classes Message-ID: <55F7AC26.7020903@oracle.com> Please approve. Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8055917 jdk9 review thread: http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/nashorn-dev/2015-September/005233.html jdk8u webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~sundar/8055917/8u/webrev.00/ The patch wouldn't apply cleanly as there are code differences between jdk9 and jdk8u nashorn repos. I did manual changes after applying the patch. I'm CC'ing nashorn team for further review. Thanks, -Sundar From michael.haupt at oracle.com Tue Sep 15 07:01:33 2015 From: michael.haupt at oracle.com (Michael Haupt) Date: Tue, 15 Sep 2015 09:01:33 +0200 Subject: [8u] approval request for 8055917: jdk.nashorn.internal.codegen.CompilationPhase$N should be renamed to proper classes In-Reply-To: <55F7AC26.7020903@oracle.com> References: <55F7AC26.7020903@oracle.com> Message-ID: Hi Sundar, lower-case thumbs up. Best, Michael > Am 15.09.2015 um 07:27 schrieb Sundararajan Athijegannathan : > > Please approve. > > Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8055917 > jdk9 review thread: http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/nashorn-dev/2015-September/005233.html > jdk8u webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~sundar/8055917/8u/webrev.00/ > > The patch wouldn't apply cleanly as there are code differences between jdk9 and jdk8u nashorn repos. I did manual changes after applying the patch. I'm CC'ing nashorn team for further review. > > Thanks, > -Sundar -- Dr. Michael Haupt | Principal Member of Technical Staff Phone: +49 331 200 7277 | Fax: +49 331 200 7561 Oracle Java Platform Group | LangTools Team | Nashorn Oracle Deutschland B.V. & Co. KG, Schiffbauergasse 14 | 14467 Potsdam, Germany Oracle is committed to developing practices and products that help protect the environment From sean.coffey at oracle.com Tue Sep 15 07:21:00 2015 From: sean.coffey at oracle.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Se=c3=a1n_Coffey?=) Date: Tue, 15 Sep 2015 08:21:00 +0100 Subject: [8u] approval request for 8055917: jdk.nashorn.internal.codegen.CompilationPhase$N should be renamed to proper classes In-Reply-To: References: <55F7AC26.7020903@oracle.com> Message-ID: <55F7C6DC.80809@oracle.com> Approved for jdk8u-dev. Regards, Sean. On 15/09/2015 08:01, Michael Haupt wrote: > Hi Sundar, > > lower-case thumbs up. > > Best, > > Michael > >> Am 15.09.2015 um 07:27 schrieb Sundararajan Athijegannathan : >> >> Please approve. >> >> Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8055917 >> jdk9 review thread: http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/nashorn-dev/2015-September/005233.html >> jdk8u webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~sundar/8055917/8u/webrev.00/ >> >> The patch wouldn't apply cleanly as there are code differences between jdk9 and jdk8u nashorn repos. I did manual changes after applying the patch. I'm CC'ing nashorn team for further review. >> >> Thanks, >> -Sundar From wilhelm at appwork.org Tue Sep 15 08:31:44 2015 From: wilhelm at appwork.org (Daniel Wilhlem) Date: Tue, 15 Sep 2015 10:31:44 +0200 Subject: 4523159: suggestion for a bugfix for 13 year old "jars in path with !" Message-ID: <55F7D770.1070608@appwork.org> Hi, Our download manager http://jdownloader.org/ has millions of customers. Some of them also suffered from the 13 year old bug http://bugs.java.com/view_bug.do?bug_id=4523159. The issue happens because '!/' is used as seperator between a jar file and its content in URLStreamHandler and JarURLConnection. I hereby want to suggest our bugfix. It consists of a modified sun.net.www.protocol.jar.Handler and sun.net.www.protocol.jar.JarURLConnection. Instead of searching for '!/' and using the first hit, our customized sun.net.www.protocol.jar.Handler loops through URL.getFile() via indexof and substring and tests if it specifies the actual jar file on disk. In case the path contains '!/' we return a customized sun.net.www.protocol.jar.JarURLConnection that overrides getJarFileURL(),getJarEntry(),getEntryName() to provide the correct information. The one disadvantage of this bugfix is the additional IO introduced by File.exits(), but that can be considered//neglectable/./ Please find attached our customized classes. Best Regards Daniel Wilhelm PS: cc'ed to jdk9-dev -- ----------------------------------------------- Daniel Wilhelm CTO, Co-Founder Appwork GmbH T: +49 (911)97923112 (Mo-Fr 9:00 - 17:00 CET) Schwabacherstra?e 117, 90763 F?rth, Germany From sean.coffey at oracle.com Tue Sep 15 09:48:54 2015 From: sean.coffey at oracle.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Se=c3=a1n_Coffey?=) Date: Tue, 15 Sep 2015 10:48:54 +0100 Subject: 4523159: suggestion for a bugfix for 13 year old "jars in path with !" In-Reply-To: <55F7D770.1070608@appwork.org> References: <55F7D770.1070608@appwork.org> Message-ID: <55F7E986.3010106@oracle.com> Daniel, Thanks for your investigation on this issue. Networking issues should be discussed on the net-dev [1] mailing list. Please post your comments and patch to that list. [1] http://mail.openjdk.java.net/mailman/listinfo/net-dev Regards, Sean. On 15/09/2015 09:31, Daniel Wilhlem wrote: > Hi, > > Our download manager http://jdownloader.org/ has millions of customers. > Some of them also suffered from the 13 year old bug > http://bugs.java.com/view_bug.do?bug_id=4523159. > The issue happens because '!/' is used as seperator between a jar file > and its content in URLStreamHandler and JarURLConnection. > > I hereby want to suggest our bugfix. > > It consists of a modified sun.net.www.protocol.jar.Handler and > sun.net.www.protocol.jar.JarURLConnection. > Instead of searching for '!/' and using the first hit, our customized > sun.net.www.protocol.jar.Handler loops through URL.getFile() > via indexof and substring and tests if it specifies the actual jar > file on disk. > In case the path contains '!/' we return a customized > sun.net.www.protocol.jar.JarURLConnection that overrides > getJarFileURL(),getJarEntry(),getEntryName() to provide the correct > information. > > The one disadvantage of this bugfix is the additional IO introduced by > File.exits(), but that can be considered//neglectable/./ > > Please find attached our customized classes. > > Best Regards > Daniel Wilhelm > > PS: cc'ed to jdk9-dev > From Alan.Bateman at oracle.com Tue Sep 15 09:59:45 2015 From: Alan.Bateman at oracle.com (Alan Bateman) Date: Tue, 15 Sep 2015 10:59:45 +0100 Subject: 4523159: suggestion for a bugfix for 13 year old "jars in path with !" In-Reply-To: <55F7E986.3010106@oracle.com> References: <55F7D770.1070608@appwork.org> <55F7E986.3010106@oracle.com> Message-ID: <55F7EC11.60802@oracle.com> On 15/09/2015 10:48, Se?n Coffey wrote: > Daniel, > > Thanks for your investigation on this issue. Networking issues should > be discussed on the net-dev [1] mailing list. Please post your > comments and patch to that list. Right, plus it would be good to dig up the history of previous attempts at this one. There was at least one attempt at this that had to be backed out, in JDK 5 or JDK 6 (and before OpenJDK), too easy to break the long standing behavior. -Alan. From wilhelm at appwork.org Tue Sep 15 10:10:41 2015 From: wilhelm at appwork.org (Daniel Wilhlem) Date: Tue, 15 Sep 2015 12:10:41 +0200 Subject: 4523159: suggestion for a bugfix for 13 year old "jars in path with !" In-Reply-To: <55F7EC11.60802@oracle.com> References: <55F7D770.1070608@appwork.org> <55F7E986.3010106@oracle.com> <55F7EC11.60802@oracle.com> Message-ID: <55F7EEA1.2070203@appwork.org> Am 15.09.2015 um 11:59 schrieb Alan Bateman: > > > On 15/09/2015 10:48, Se?n Coffey wrote: >> Daniel, >> >> Thanks for your investigation on this issue. Networking issues should >> be discussed on the net-dev [1] mailing list. Please post your >> comments and patch to that list. > Right, plus it would be good to dig up the history of previous > attempts at this one. There was at least one attempt at this that had > to be backed out, in JDK 5 or JDK 6 (and before OpenJDK), too easy to > break the long standing behavior. > > -Alan. Hi Alan, thanks for joining/commenting on this one. I guess the previous attempt you were talking about, was the change of indexof vs lastindexof that broke the current implementation. Our approach does not break anything as we simply search for the real jar file in filesystem than relying on indexof. I tested it with many different paths. Even '/home/daniel/!test!/test.jar/test.jar!/realJarFile.jar work fine now. I also received many feedback from our customers (different OS) that it works fine now with ! in paths. best regards daniel PS: @ Se?n shall I change/post to other mailing list then? -- ----------------------------------------------- Daniel Wilhelm CTO, Co-Founder Appwork GmbH T: +49 (911)97923112 (Mo-Fr 9:00 - 17:00 CET) Schwabacherstra?e 117, 90763 F?rth, Germany From otavio.salvador at ossystems.com.br Tue Sep 15 11:27:26 2015 From: otavio.salvador at ossystems.com.br (Otavio Salvador) Date: Tue, 15 Sep 2015 08:27:26 -0300 Subject: SEGV when using OpenJDK-8 on ARM (llvm-3.5, shark) In-Reply-To: <2D018E1A-21FA-4138-8DE2-E1247753915D@gmail.com> References: <2D018E1A-21FA-4138-8DE2-E1247753915D@gmail.com> Message-ID: On Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 4:44 PM, Jens Rehsack wrote: > java segfaults and I have no clue where to start searching. Please send this to the mailing list. Ideally you could prepare a patchset which targets for merging into master and we can than focus in the segfault debugging. I think your branch seems to be the most advanced one but the logs and patches are not logically splitted. Is it possible to get this cleaned so we can try to iron this out? -- Otavio Salvador O.S. Systems http://www.ossystems.com.br http://code.ossystems.com.br Mobile: +55 (53) 9981-7854 Mobile: +1 (347) 903-9750 From attila.szegedi at oracle.com Tue Sep 15 11:42:13 2015 From: attila.szegedi at oracle.com (Attila Szegedi) Date: Tue, 15 Sep 2015 13:42:13 +0200 Subject: [8u-dev] Request for Approval: 8134150: Make Timing both threadsafe and efficient Message-ID: <7010403C-D3B6-4F24-9189-7E4A2A1CB454@oracle.com> Please approve. Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8134150 jdk9 webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~attila/8134150/webrev.jdk9 jdk9 review thread: http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/nashorn-dev/2015-August/005044.html Changes apply cleanly to jdk8u-dev after path reshuffling from modular source code layout, BUT I had to modify the source as Nashorn in JDK 8 must use -source 1.7, therefore I had to remove the use of a Function lambda: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~attila/8134150/webrev.jdk8u-dev Thanks, Attila. From sundararajan.athijegannathan at oracle.com Tue Sep 15 11:45:54 2015 From: sundararajan.athijegannathan at oracle.com (Sundararajan Athijegannathan) Date: Tue, 15 Sep 2015 17:15:54 +0530 Subject: [8u-dev] Request for Approval: 8134150: Make Timing both threadsafe and efficient In-Reply-To: <7010403C-D3B6-4F24-9189-7E4A2A1CB454@oracle.com> References: <7010403C-D3B6-4F24-9189-7E4A2A1CB454@oracle.com> Message-ID: <55F804F2.9030407@oracle.com> +1 -Sundar On 9/15/2015 5:12 PM, Attila Szegedi wrote: > Please approve. > > Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8134150 > jdk9 webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~attila/8134150/webrev.jdk9 > jdk9 review thread: http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/nashorn-dev/2015-August/005044.html > > Changes apply cleanly to jdk8u-dev after path reshuffling from modular source code layout, BUT I had to modify the source as Nashorn in JDK 8 must use -source 1.7, therefore I had to remove the use of a Function lambda: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~attila/8134150/webrev.jdk8u-dev > > Thanks, > Attila. From rob.mckenna at oracle.com Tue Sep 15 11:49:33 2015 From: rob.mckenna at oracle.com (Rob McKenna) Date: Tue, 15 Sep 2015 12:49:33 +0100 Subject: [8u-dev] Request for Approval: 8134150: Make Timing both threadsafe and efficient In-Reply-To: <7010403C-D3B6-4F24-9189-7E4A2A1CB454@oracle.com> References: <7010403C-D3B6-4F24-9189-7E4A2A1CB454@oracle.com> Message-ID: <55F805CD.3030901@oracle.com> Approved -Rob On 15/09/15 12:42, Attila Szegedi wrote: > Please approve. > > Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8134150 > jdk9 webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~attila/8134150/webrev.jdk9 > jdk9 review thread: http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/nashorn-dev/2015-August/005044.html > > Changes apply cleanly to jdk8u-dev after path reshuffling from modular source code layout, BUT I had to modify the source as Nashorn in JDK 8 must use -source 1.7, therefore I had to remove the use of a Function lambda: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~attila/8134150/webrev.jdk8u-dev > > Thanks, > Attila. > From sean.coffey at oracle.com Tue Sep 15 11:49:56 2015 From: sean.coffey at oracle.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Se=c3=a1n_Coffey?=) Date: Tue, 15 Sep 2015 12:49:56 +0100 Subject: [8u-dev] Request for Approval: 8134150: Make Timing both threadsafe and efficient In-Reply-To: <55F804F2.9030407@oracle.com> References: <7010403C-D3B6-4F24-9189-7E4A2A1CB454@oracle.com> <55F804F2.9030407@oracle.com> Message-ID: <55F805E3.6020207@oracle.com> Approved. just a side comment : I would have thought that noreg-perf would be a more suitable label for this issue Regards, Sean. On 15/09/2015 12:45, Sundararajan Athijegannathan wrote: > +1 > > -Sundar > > On 9/15/2015 5:12 PM, Attila Szegedi wrote: >> Please approve. >> >> Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8134150 >> jdk9 webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~attila/8134150/webrev.jdk9 >> jdk9 review thread: >> http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/nashorn-dev/2015-August/005044.html >> >> Changes apply cleanly to jdk8u-dev after path reshuffling from >> modular source code layout, BUT I had to modify the source as Nashorn >> in JDK 8 must use -source 1.7, therefore I had to remove the use of a >> Function lambda: >> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~attila/8134150/webrev.jdk8u-dev >> >> Thanks, >> Attila. > From attila.szegedi at oracle.com Tue Sep 15 12:15:11 2015 From: attila.szegedi at oracle.com (Attila Szegedi) Date: Tue, 15 Sep 2015 14:15:11 +0200 Subject: [8u-dev] Request for Approval: 8134150: Make Timing both threadsafe and efficient In-Reply-To: <55F805E3.6020207@oracle.com> References: <7010403C-D3B6-4F24-9189-7E4A2A1CB454@oracle.com> <55F804F2.9030407@oracle.com> <55F805E3.6020207@oracle.com> Message-ID: I agree; I changed the label. > On Sep 15, 2015, at 1:49 PM, Se?n Coffey wrote: > > Approved. > > just a side comment : > I would have thought that noreg-perf would be a more suitable label for this issue > > Regards, > Sean. > > On 15/09/2015 12:45, Sundararajan Athijegannathan wrote: >> +1 >> >> -Sundar >> >> On 9/15/2015 5:12 PM, Attila Szegedi wrote: >>> Please approve. >>> >>> Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8134150 >>> jdk9 webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~attila/8134150/webrev.jdk9 >>> jdk9 review thread: http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/nashorn-dev/2015-August/005044.html >>> >>> Changes apply cleanly to jdk8u-dev after path reshuffling from modular source code layout, BUT I had to modify the source as Nashorn in JDK 8 must use -source 1.7, therefore I had to remove the use of a Function lambda: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~attila/8134150/webrev.jdk8u-dev >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Attila. >> > From ivan.gerasimov at oracle.com Tue Sep 15 13:24:42 2015 From: ivan.gerasimov at oracle.com (Ivan Gerasimov) Date: Tue, 15 Sep 2015 16:24:42 +0300 Subject: [8u-dev] Request for approval to backport: 8130274: java/nio/file/FileStore/Basic.java fails when two successive stores in an iteration are determined to be equal Message-ID: <55F81C1A.9060604@oracle.com> Hello! I'd like to backport this fix into jdk8u-dev. We're still seeing the test failure caused by this bug, so I believe it will be good to have the fix. The unshuffled patch applies cleanly. Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8130274 Jdk9 change: http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk9/jdk9/jdk/rev/0df62b08163a Jdk9 review: http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/nio-dev/2015-July/003242.html Sincerely yours, Ivan From attila.szegedi at oracle.com Tue Sep 15 14:26:29 2015 From: attila.szegedi at oracle.com (Attila Szegedi) Date: Tue, 15 Sep 2015 16:26:29 +0200 Subject: [8u-dev] Request for Approval: 8133785: SharedScopeCall should be enabled for non-optimistic call sites in optimistic compilation Message-ID: <7E7EA7C4-EF5A-49CB-9D93-6700F31F1001@oracle.com> Please approve. Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8133785 jdk9 webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~attila/8133785/webrev.jdk9 jdk9 review thread: http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/nashorn-dev/2015-August/005038.html Changes apply cleanly to jdk8u-dev after path reshuffling from modular source code layout. Thanks, Attila. From sundararajan.athijegannathan at oracle.com Tue Sep 15 14:49:09 2015 From: sundararajan.athijegannathan at oracle.com (Sundararajan Athijegannathan) Date: Tue, 15 Sep 2015 20:19:09 +0530 Subject: [8u] Approval request for 8080501: javaarrayconversion.js test is flawed Message-ID: <55F82FE5.7070105@oracle.com> Please approve. Bug:https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8080501 jdk9 review thread: http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/nashorn-dev/2015-September/005248.html jdk8u webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~sundar/8080501/8u/webrev.00/ Backported 'as is' except for the modular source layout difference. Thanks, -Sundar From rob.mckenna at oracle.com Tue Sep 15 15:24:32 2015 From: rob.mckenna at oracle.com (Rob McKenna) Date: Tue, 15 Sep 2015 16:24:32 +0100 Subject: [8u-dev] Request for approval to backport: 8130274: java/nio/file/FileStore/Basic.java fails when two successive stores in an iteration are determined to be equal In-Reply-To: <55F81C1A.9060604@oracle.com> References: <55F81C1A.9060604@oracle.com> Message-ID: <55F83830.1060406@oracle.com> Approved -Rob On 15/09/15 14:24, Ivan Gerasimov wrote: > Hello! > > I'd like to backport this fix into jdk8u-dev. > We're still seeing the test failure caused by this bug, so I believe it > will be good to have the fix. > The unshuffled patch applies cleanly. > > Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8130274 > Jdk9 change: http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk9/jdk9/jdk/rev/0df62b08163a > Jdk9 review: > http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/nio-dev/2015-July/003242.html > > Sincerely yours, > Ivan > From rob.mckenna at oracle.com Tue Sep 15 15:24:39 2015 From: rob.mckenna at oracle.com (Rob McKenna) Date: Tue, 15 Sep 2015 16:24:39 +0100 Subject: [8u-dev] Request for Approval: 8133785: SharedScopeCall should be enabled for non-optimistic call sites in optimistic compilation In-Reply-To: <7E7EA7C4-EF5A-49CB-9D93-6700F31F1001@oracle.com> References: <7E7EA7C4-EF5A-49CB-9D93-6700F31F1001@oracle.com> Message-ID: <55F83837.8080007@oracle.com> Approved -Rob On 15/09/15 15:26, Attila Szegedi wrote: > Please approve. > > Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8133785 > jdk9 webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~attila/8133785/webrev.jdk9 > jdk9 review thread: http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/nashorn-dev/2015-August/005038.html > > Changes apply cleanly to jdk8u-dev after path reshuffling from modular source code layout. > > Thanks, > Attila. > From rob.mckenna at oracle.com Tue Sep 15 15:24:45 2015 From: rob.mckenna at oracle.com (Rob McKenna) Date: Tue, 15 Sep 2015 16:24:45 +0100 Subject: [8u] Approval request for 8080501: javaarrayconversion.js test is flawed In-Reply-To: <55F82FE5.7070105@oracle.com> References: <55F82FE5.7070105@oracle.com> Message-ID: <55F8383D.6050008@oracle.com> Approved -Rob On 15/09/15 15:49, Sundararajan Athijegannathan wrote: > Please approve. > > Bug:https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8080501 > jdk9 review thread: > http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/nashorn-dev/2015-September/005248.html > > jdk8u webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~sundar/8080501/8u/webrev.00/ > > Backported 'as is' except for the modular source layout difference. > > Thanks, > -Sundar From sean.coffey at oracle.com Tue Sep 15 15:24:50 2015 From: sean.coffey at oracle.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Se=c3=a1n_Coffey?=) Date: Tue, 15 Sep 2015 16:24:50 +0100 Subject: [8u-dev] Request for approval to backport: 8130274: java/nio/file/FileStore/Basic.java fails when two successive stores in an iteration are determined to be equal In-Reply-To: <55F81C1A.9060604@oracle.com> References: <55F81C1A.9060604@oracle.com> Message-ID: <55F83842.7090305@oracle.com> Approved. Regards, Sean. On 15/09/2015 14:24, Ivan Gerasimov wrote: > Hello! > > I'd like to backport this fix into jdk8u-dev. > We're still seeing the test failure caused by this bug, so I believe > it will be good to have the fix. > The unshuffled patch applies cleanly. > > Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8130274 > Jdk9 change: http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk9/jdk9/jdk/rev/0df62b08163a > Jdk9 review: > http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/nio-dev/2015-July/003242.html > > Sincerely yours, > Ivan > From sean.coffey at oracle.com Tue Sep 15 15:25:34 2015 From: sean.coffey at oracle.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Se=c3=a1n_Coffey?=) Date: Tue, 15 Sep 2015 16:25:34 +0100 Subject: [8u-dev] Request for Approval: 8133785: SharedScopeCall should be enabled for non-optimistic call sites in optimistic compilation In-Reply-To: <7E7EA7C4-EF5A-49CB-9D93-6700F31F1001@oracle.com> References: <7E7EA7C4-EF5A-49CB-9D93-6700F31F1001@oracle.com> Message-ID: <55F8386E.1060508@oracle.com> Approved. Regards, Sean. On 15/09/2015 15:26, Attila Szegedi wrote: > Please approve. > > Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8133785 > jdk9 webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~attila/8133785/webrev.jdk9 > jdk9 review thread: http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/nashorn-dev/2015-August/005038.html > > Changes apply cleanly to jdk8u-dev after path reshuffling from modular source code layout. > > Thanks, > Attila. From jan.lahoda at oracle.com Wed Sep 16 09:17:12 2015 From: jan.lahoda at oracle.com (Jan Lahoda) Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2015 11:17:12 +0200 Subject: [8u-dev] request for review and approval to backport JDK-8067422: Lambda method names are unnecessarily unstable In-Reply-To: <55F7206E.2000909@oracle.com> References: <54DD181C.30206@oracle.com> <55F6ECD0.9000504@oracle.com> <55F70EFF.3020500@oracle.com> <55F7206E.2000909@oracle.com> Message-ID: <55F93398.60400@oracle.com> On 14.9.2015 21:30, Rob McKenna wrote: > Approved for push to 8u-dev - you're a little late for 8u60 :) Thanks! (Sorry for using a wrong subject!) > > (subject updated) > > -Rob > > On 14/09/15 19:16, Vicente-Arturo Romero-Zaldivar wrote: >> Approved, Thanks! >> >> Side comment, if we see many cases like this in the future we can >> consider backporting ToolBox to 8. I was thinking of this - but I don't expect that we will need to backport very many tests depending on the new ToolBox, and the test framework backport could be tricky, so I opted for the simpler solution here. Thanks, Jan >> >> Thanks, >> Vicente >> >> On 09/14/2015 08:50 AM, Jan Lahoda wrote: >>> Hello, >>> >>> I'd like to ask for a review and an approval to backport the following >>> fix to 8u-dev: >>> >>> Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8067422 >>> jdk9 fix: >>> http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk9/jdk9/langtools/rev/d386dce997f6 >>> >>> The patch applies cleanly to 8u-dev, but the test depends on test >>> framework that is not in 8u-dev and would fail. So I had to rewrite >>> the test to avoid that dependency. The webrev of the updated patch >>> against 8u-dev is here: >>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~jlahoda/8067422-8/webrev.00/ >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Jan >> From attila.szegedi at oracle.com Wed Sep 16 10:49:52 2015 From: attila.szegedi at oracle.com (Attila Szegedi) Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2015 12:49:52 +0200 Subject: [8u-dev] Request for Approval: 8133300: Ensure symbol table immutability in Nashorn AST Message-ID: <0A0B6A7C-7E83-41E8-B590-25D381CA4ACF@oracle.com> Please approve. Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8133300 jdk9 webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~attila/8133300/webrev.jdk9 jdk9 review thread: http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/nashorn-dev/2015-September/005107.html Changes have been made to the jdk8-dev version of the code (see the ?jdk8 review thread? e-mail linked below for change details), hence: jdk8 webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~attila/8133300/webrev.jdk8u-dev jdk8 review thread: http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/nashorn-dev/2015-September/005251.html Thanks, Attila. From attila.szegedi at oracle.com Wed Sep 16 10:53:31 2015 From: attila.szegedi at oracle.com (Attila Szegedi) Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2015 12:53:31 +0200 Subject: [8u-dev] Request for Approval: 8134930: Defer stack trace walking of NashornException for extracting line number and file name Message-ID: Please approve. Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8134930 jdk9 webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~attila/8134930/webrev.jdk9 jdk9 review thread: http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/nashorn-dev/2015-September/005129.html Changes apply cleanly to jdk8u-dev after path reshuffling from modular source code layout. Thanks, Attila. From sundararajan.athijegannathan at oracle.com Wed Sep 16 11:52:28 2015 From: sundararajan.athijegannathan at oracle.com (Sundararajan Athijegannathan) Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2015 17:22:28 +0530 Subject: [8u] approval request for 8136544: Call site switching to megamorphic causes incorrect property read Message-ID: <55F957FC.6030705@oracle.com> Please approve. Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8136544 jdk9 review thread: http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/nashorn-dev/2015-September/005253.html jdk8u webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~sundar/8136544/8u/webrev.00/ Backported 'as is' except for modular source layout difference.. Thanks, -Sundar From sean.coffey at oracle.com Wed Sep 16 11:54:38 2015 From: sean.coffey at oracle.com (=?UTF-8?B?U2XDoW4gQ29mZmV5?=) Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2015 12:54:38 +0100 Subject: [8u-dev] Request for Approval: 8133300: Ensure symbol table immutability in Nashorn AST In-Reply-To: <0A0B6A7C-7E83-41E8-B590-25D381CA4ACF@oracle.com> References: <0A0B6A7C-7E83-41E8-B590-25D381CA4ACF@oracle.com> Message-ID: <55F9587E.3010909@oracle.com> Looks like this needs a noreg label. Approved. Regards, Sean. On 16/09/15 11:49, Attila Szegedi wrote: > Please approve. > > Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8133300 > jdk9 webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~attila/8133300/webrev.jdk9 > jdk9 review thread: http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/nashorn-dev/2015-September/005107.html > > Changes have been made to the jdk8-dev version of the code (see the ?jdk8 review thread? e-mail linked below for change details), hence: > > jdk8 webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~attila/8133300/webrev.jdk8u-dev > jdk8 review thread: http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/nashorn-dev/2015-September/005251.html > > Thanks, > Attila. From sean.coffey at oracle.com Wed Sep 16 11:55:06 2015 From: sean.coffey at oracle.com (=?windows-1252?Q?Se=E1n_Coffey?=) Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2015 12:55:06 +0100 Subject: [8u-dev] Request for Approval: 8134930: Defer stack trace walking of NashornException for extracting line number and file name In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <55F9589A.8070002@oracle.com> Approved. Regards, Sean. On 16/09/15 11:53, Attila Szegedi wrote: > Please approve. > > Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8134930 > jdk9 webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~attila/8134930/webrev.jdk9 > jdk9 review thread: http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/nashorn-dev/2015-September/005129.html > > Changes apply cleanly to jdk8u-dev after path reshuffling from modular source code layout. > > Thanks, > Attila. From sean.coffey at oracle.com Wed Sep 16 11:55:44 2015 From: sean.coffey at oracle.com (=?UTF-8?B?U2XDoW4gQ29mZmV5?=) Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2015 12:55:44 +0100 Subject: [8u] approval request for 8136544: Call site switching to megamorphic causes incorrect property read In-Reply-To: <55F957FC.6030705@oracle.com> References: <55F957FC.6030705@oracle.com> Message-ID: <55F958C0.10904@oracle.com> Approved. Regards, Sean. On 16/09/15 12:52, Sundararajan Athijegannathan wrote: > Please approve. > > Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8136544 > jdk9 review thread: > http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/nashorn-dev/2015-September/005253.html > jdk8u webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~sundar/8136544/8u/webrev.00/ > > Backported 'as is' except for modular source layout difference.. > > Thanks, > -Sundar From attila.szegedi at oracle.com Wed Sep 16 12:24:42 2015 From: attila.szegedi at oracle.com (Attila Szegedi) Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2015 14:24:42 +0200 Subject: [8u-dev] Request for Approval: 8133300: Ensure symbol table immutability in Nashorn AST In-Reply-To: <55F9587E.3010909@oracle.com> References: <0A0B6A7C-7E83-41E8-B590-25D381CA4ACF@oracle.com> <55F9587E.3010909@oracle.com> Message-ID: <5BE07FE6-1670-47EA-9752-810342FD8BB1@oracle.com> Indeed it does. I could?ve sworn I added one. Set ?noreg-perf? now. Thanks, Attila. > On Sep 16, 2015, at 1:54 PM, Se?n Coffey wrote: > > Looks like this needs a noreg label. > > Approved. > > Regards, > Sean. > > On 16/09/15 11:49, Attila Szegedi wrote: >> Please approve. >> >> Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8133300 >> jdk9 webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~attila/8133300/webrev.jdk9 >> jdk9 review thread: http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/nashorn-dev/2015-September/005107.html >> >> Changes have been made to the jdk8-dev version of the code (see the ?jdk8 review thread? e-mail linked below for change details), hence: >> >> jdk8 webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~attila/8133300/webrev.jdk8u-dev >> jdk8 review thread: http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/nashorn-dev/2015-September/005251.html >> >> Thanks, >> Attila. > From attila.szegedi at oracle.com Wed Sep 16 12:31:53 2015 From: attila.szegedi at oracle.com (Attila Szegedi) Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2015 14:31:53 +0200 Subject: [8u-dev] Request for Approval: 8134939: Improve toString method of Dynalink DynamicMethod objects Message-ID: <2940D056-7BA6-407F-899E-1B10903050DD@oracle.com> Please approve the following two changesets. While originally I set out to backport 8134939, it failed to apply cleanly, which surprised me. I tracked it down to the fact that it modified a test that 8057035 also modified, and 8057035 itself was not backported. Hence, I?m looking to backport both 8057035 and 8134939, they apply cleanly after path reshuffling when they?re both applied in the chronological order. Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8057035 jdk9 webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~yan/8057035/webrev.00/ jdk9 review thread: http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/nashorn-dev/2014-September/003453.html Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8134939 jdk9 webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~attila/8134939/webrev.jdk9 jdk9 review thread: http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/nashorn-dev/2015-September/005135.html Thanks, Attila. From attila.szegedi at oracle.com Wed Sep 16 13:07:51 2015 From: attila.szegedi at oracle.com (Attila Szegedi) Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2015 15:07:51 +0200 Subject: [8u-dev] Request for Approval: 8134939: Improve toString method of Dynalink DynamicMethod objects In-Reply-To: <2940D056-7BA6-407F-899E-1B10903050DD@oracle.com> References: <2940D056-7BA6-407F-899E-1B10903050DD@oracle.com> Message-ID: Correction: jdk9 webrev for 8134939 is at http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~attila/8134939/webrev.01.jdk9/ Attila. > On Sep 16, 2015, at 2:31 PM, Attila Szegedi wrote: > > Please approve the following two changesets. While originally I set out to backport 8134939, it failed to apply cleanly, which surprised me. I tracked it down to the fact that it modified a test that 8057035 also modified, and 8057035 itself was not backported. Hence, I?m looking to backport both 8057035 and 8134939, they apply cleanly after path reshuffling when they?re both applied in the chronological order. > > Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8057035 > jdk9 webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~yan/8057035/webrev.00/ > jdk9 review thread: http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/nashorn-dev/2014-September/003453.html > > Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8134939 > jdk9 webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~attila/8134939/webrev.jdk9 > jdk9 review thread: http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/nashorn-dev/2015-September/005135.html > > Thanks, > Attila. From rob.mckenna at oracle.com Wed Sep 16 13:11:36 2015 From: rob.mckenna at oracle.com (Rob McKenna) Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2015 14:11:36 +0100 Subject: [8u-dev] Request for Approval: 8134939: Improve toString method of Dynalink DynamicMethod objects In-Reply-To: <2940D056-7BA6-407F-899E-1B10903050DD@oracle.com> References: <2940D056-7BA6-407F-899E-1B10903050DD@oracle.com> Message-ID: <55F96A88.8040503@oracle.com> Approved -Rob On 16/09/15 13:31, Attila Szegedi wrote: > Please approve the following two changesets. While originally I set out to backport 8134939, it failed to apply cleanly, which surprised me. I tracked it down to the fact that it modified a test that 8057035 also modified, and 8057035 itself was not backported. Hence, I?m looking to backport both 8057035 and 8134939, they apply cleanly after path reshuffling when they?re both applied in the chronological order. > > Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8057035 > jdk9 webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~yan/8057035/webrev.00/ > jdk9 review thread: http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/nashorn-dev/2014-September/003453.html > > Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8134939 > jdk9 webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~attila/8134939/webrev.jdk9 > jdk9 review thread: http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/nashorn-dev/2015-September/005135.html > > Thanks, > Attila. > From attila.szegedi at oracle.com Wed Sep 16 13:21:34 2015 From: attila.szegedi at oracle.com (Attila Szegedi) Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2015 15:21:34 +0200 Subject: [8u-dev] Request for Approval: 8135075: Reorder short-circuit tests in ApplySpecialization to run cheapest first Message-ID: Please approve. Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8135075 jdk9 webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~attila/8135075/webrev.jdk9 jdk9 review thread: http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/nashorn-dev/2015-September/005158.html Changes apply cleanly to jdk8u-dev after path reshuffling from modular source code layout. Thanks, Attila. From rob.mckenna at oracle.com Wed Sep 16 13:29:41 2015 From: rob.mckenna at oracle.com (Rob McKenna) Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2015 14:29:41 +0100 Subject: [8u-dev] Request for Approval: 8135075: Reorder short-circuit tests in ApplySpecialization to run cheapest first In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <55F96EC5.5020603@oracle.com> Approved -Rob On 16/09/15 14:21, Attila Szegedi wrote: > Please approve. > > Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8135075 > jdk9 webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~attila/8135075/webrev.jdk9 > jdk9 review thread: http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/nashorn-dev/2015-September/005158.html > > Changes apply cleanly to jdk8u-dev after path reshuffling from modular source code layout. > > Thanks, > Attila. > From attila.szegedi at oracle.com Wed Sep 16 13:36:54 2015 From: attila.szegedi at oracle.com (Attila Szegedi) Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2015 15:36:54 +0200 Subject: [8u-dev] Request for Approval: 8135262: Sanitize CodeInstaller API Message-ID: <34E40570-AC9C-4ED4-A7F3-7A2FD616CCBB@oracle.com> Please approve the two changesets below: Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8135262 jdk9 webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~attila/8135262/webrev.jdk9 jdk9 review thread: http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/nashorn-dev/2015-September/005185.html There is a trivial change in the import declarations of src/jdk/nashorn/tools/Shell.java; I?m attaching a 8u-dev webrev. The only change is in Shell.java import declarations. http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~attila/8135262/webrev.jdk8u-dev This changeset will be followed immediately by the next one that fixed a broken test in the previous one: Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8135336 jdk9 webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~attila/8135336/webrev.jdk9 jdk9 review thread: http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/nashorn-dev/2015-September/005198.html These changes apply cleanly to jdk8u-dev after path reshuffling from modular source code layout. Thanks, Attila. From sundararajan.athijegannathan at oracle.com Thu Sep 17 14:01:53 2015 From: sundararajan.athijegannathan at oracle.com (Sundararajan Athijegannathan) Date: Thu, 17 Sep 2015 19:31:53 +0530 Subject: [8u] approval request 8136694: Megemorphic scope access does not throw ReferenceError when property is missing Message-ID: <55FAC7D1.7020107@oracle.com> bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8136694 jdk9 review thread: http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/nashorn-dev/2015-September/005278.html jdk8u webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~sundar/8136694/8u/webrev.00/ Backported 'as is' except for modular source layout difference. Thanks, -Sundar From rob.mckenna at oracle.com Thu Sep 17 14:09:30 2015 From: rob.mckenna at oracle.com (Rob McKenna) Date: Thu, 17 Sep 2015 15:09:30 +0100 Subject: [8u] approval request 8136694: Megemorphic scope access does not throw ReferenceError when property is missing In-Reply-To: <55FAC7D1.7020107@oracle.com> References: <55FAC7D1.7020107@oracle.com> Message-ID: <55FAC99A.6020605@oracle.com> Approved -Rob On 17/09/15 15:01, Sundararajan Athijegannathan wrote: > > bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8136694 > jdk9 review thread: > http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/nashorn-dev/2015-September/005278.html > > jdk8u webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~sundar/8136694/8u/webrev.00/ > > Backported 'as is' except for modular source layout difference. > > Thanks, > -Sundar From rob.mckenna at oracle.com Fri Sep 18 12:25:06 2015 From: rob.mckenna at oracle.com (Rob McKenna) Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2015 13:25:06 +0100 Subject: [8u-dev] Request for Approval - 8129957: Deadlock in JNDI LDAP implementation when closing the LDAP context Message-ID: <55FC02A2.9010203@oracle.com> Hi folks, I'd like to backport this change to 8u-dev. The fix applies cleanly. bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8129957 changeset: http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk9/dev/jdk/rev/bc949d71fd9d review: http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/core-libs-dev/2015-September/035264.html -Rob From sean.coffey at oracle.com Fri Sep 18 12:35:54 2015 From: sean.coffey at oracle.com (=?UTF-8?B?U2XDoW4gQ29mZmV5?=) Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2015 13:35:54 +0100 Subject: [8u-dev] Request for Approval - 8129957: Deadlock in JNDI LDAP implementation when closing the LDAP context In-Reply-To: <55FC02A2.9010203@oracle.com> References: <55FC02A2.9010203@oracle.com> Message-ID: <55FC052A.7010303@oracle.com> Please add a suitable noreg label. Approved. Regards, Sean. On 18/09/15 13:25, Rob McKenna wrote: > Hi folks, > > I'd like to backport this change to 8u-dev. The fix applies cleanly. > > bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8129957 > changeset: http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk9/dev/jdk/rev/bc949d71fd9d > review: > http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/core-libs-dev/2015-September/035264.html > > -Rob From erik.joelsson at oracle.com Fri Sep 18 16:41:25 2015 From: erik.joelsson at oracle.com (Erik Joelsson) Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2015 09:41:25 -0700 Subject: [8u] Request for Approval and Review: JDK-8136691: 8u65/8u66 b14 Solaris builds failed on Linking libverify.so Message-ID: <55FC3EB5.2080905@oracle.com> Hello, Please approve and review this fix for 8u. There is a discrepancy between the Solaris and Linux makefiles for Hotspot, where a source file is excluded for a certain configuration on Linux but not on Solaris. This causes the build to fail on Solaris in that configuration. Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8136691 Patch: diff --git a/make/solaris/makefiles/trace.make b/make/solaris/makefiles/trace.make --- a/make/solaris/makefiles/trace.make +++ b/make/solaris/makefiles/trace.make @@ -56,8 +56,12 @@ ifeq ($(HAS_ALT_SRC), true) TraceGeneratedNames += \ traceRequestables.hpp \ - traceEventControl.hpp \ - traceProducer.cpp + traceEventControl.hpp + +ifneq ($(INCLUDE_TRACE), false) + TraceGeneratedNames += traceProducer.cpp +endif + endif TraceGeneratedFiles = $(TraceGeneratedNames:%=$(TraceOutDir)/%) /Erik From sean.coffey at oracle.com Fri Sep 18 16:59:00 2015 From: sean.coffey at oracle.com (=?UTF-8?B?U2XDoW4gQ29mZmV5?=) Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2015 17:59:00 +0100 Subject: [8u] Request for Approval and Review: JDK-8136691: 8u65/8u66 b14 Solaris builds failed on Linking libverify.so In-Reply-To: <55FC3EB5.2080905@oracle.com> References: <55FC3EB5.2080905@oracle.com> Message-ID: <55FC42D4.3000703@oracle.com> Approved but subject to review. Please add the noreg-build label. Add the 9-na label if it's not applicable to JDK 9. If it is applicable to JDK 9, create a backport record so that it doesn't get overlooked. Regards, Sean. On 18/09/15 17:41, Erik Joelsson wrote: > Hello, > > Please approve and review this fix for 8u. There is a discrepancy > between the Solaris and Linux makefiles for Hotspot, where a source > file is excluded for a certain configuration on Linux but not on > Solaris. This causes the build to fail on Solaris in that configuration. > > Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8136691 > Patch: > diff --git a/make/solaris/makefiles/trace.make > b/make/solaris/makefiles/trace.make > --- a/make/solaris/makefiles/trace.make > +++ b/make/solaris/makefiles/trace.make > @@ -56,8 +56,12 @@ > ifeq ($(HAS_ALT_SRC), true) > TraceGeneratedNames += \ > traceRequestables.hpp \ > - traceEventControl.hpp \ > - traceProducer.cpp > + traceEventControl.hpp > + > +ifneq ($(INCLUDE_TRACE), false) > + TraceGeneratedNames += traceProducer.cpp > +endif > + > endif > > TraceGeneratedFiles = $(TraceGeneratedNames:%=$(TraceOutDir)/%) > > > /Erik From tim.bell at oracle.com Fri Sep 18 18:16:17 2015 From: tim.bell at oracle.com (Tim Bell) Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2015 11:16:17 -0700 Subject: [8u] Request for Approval and Review: JDK-8136691: 8u65/8u66 b14 Solaris builds failed on Linking libverify.so In-Reply-To: <55FC42D4.3000703@oracle.com> References: <55FC3EB5.2080905@oracle.com> <55FC42D4.3000703@oracle.com> Message-ID: <55FC54F1.6030901@oracle.com> Erik- The code review part looks good. Tim On 09/18/15 09:59, Se?n Coffey wrote: > Approved but subject to review. Please add the noreg-build label. Add > the 9-na label if it's not applicable to JDK 9. If it is applicable to > JDK 9, create a backport record so that it doesn't get overlooked. > > Regards, > Sean. > > On 18/09/15 17:41, Erik Joelsson wrote: >> Hello, >> >> Please approve and review this fix for 8u. There is a discrepancy >> between the Solaris and Linux makefiles for Hotspot, where a source >> file is excluded for a certain configuration on Linux but not on >> Solaris. This causes the build to fail on Solaris in that configuration. >> >> Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8136691 >> Patch: >> diff --git a/make/solaris/makefiles/trace.make >> b/make/solaris/makefiles/trace.make >> --- a/make/solaris/makefiles/trace.make >> +++ b/make/solaris/makefiles/trace.make >> @@ -56,8 +56,12 @@ >> ifeq ($(HAS_ALT_SRC), true) >> TraceGeneratedNames += \ >> traceRequestables.hpp \ >> - traceEventControl.hpp \ >> - traceProducer.cpp >> + traceEventControl.hpp >> + >> +ifneq ($(INCLUDE_TRACE), false) >> + TraceGeneratedNames += traceProducer.cpp >> +endif >> + >> endif >> >> TraceGeneratedFiles = $(TraceGeneratedNames:%=$(TraceOutDir)/%) >> >> >> /Erik > From hannes.wallnoefer at oracle.com Mon Sep 21 13:58:32 2015 From: hannes.wallnoefer at oracle.com (Hannes Wallnoefer) Date: Mon, 21 Sep 2015 15:58:32 +0200 Subject: [8u-dev] Request for Approval: 8135190: Method code too large in Babel browser.js script Message-ID: <56000D08.2030003@oracle.com> Please approve backport of 8135190: Method code too large in Babel browser.js script: Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8135190 Webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~hannesw/8135190/ Review thread: http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/nashorn-dev/2015-September/005287.html Changes apply cleanly to jdk8u-dev after path reshuffling. Thanks, Hannes From rob.mckenna at oracle.com Mon Sep 21 14:05:40 2015 From: rob.mckenna at oracle.com (Rob McKenna) Date: Mon, 21 Sep 2015 15:05:40 +0100 Subject: [8u-dev] Request for Approval: 8135190: Method code too large in Babel browser.js script In-Reply-To: <56000D08.2030003@oracle.com> References: <56000D08.2030003@oracle.com> Message-ID: <56000EB4.5030302@oracle.com> Approved -Rob On 21/09/15 14:58, Hannes Wallnoefer wrote: > Please approve backport of 8135190: Method code too large in Babel > browser.js script: > > Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8135190 > Webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~hannesw/8135190/ > Review thread: > http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/nashorn-dev/2015-September/005287.html > > > Changes apply cleanly to jdk8u-dev after path reshuffling. > > Thanks, > Hannes From rob.mckenna at oracle.com Mon Sep 21 16:00:11 2015 From: rob.mckenna at oracle.com (Rob McKenna) Date: Mon, 21 Sep 2015 17:00:11 +0100 Subject: [8u-communication] JDK 8u60 released today! (and 8u72 timeline) In-Reply-To: <20150908174648.GE3460@redhat.com> References: <55D38411.7080002@oracle.com> <2132082391.12414344.1439997153546.JavaMail.zimbra@redhat.com> <55D4BC2F.3010407@oracle.com> <20150904212142.GD7303@redhat.com> <55ED9FD2.1010800@oracle.com> <1481269188.6802904.1441653339608.JavaMail.zimbra@redhat.com> <55EEF41A.5000000@oracle.com> <20150908170241.GC3460@redhat.com> <55EF19CF.8060608@oracle.com> <20150908174648.GE3460@redhat.com> Message-ID: <5600298B.3030703@oracle.com> Hi Omair, Apologies for the delay. I've just added a note under Multi-release tracking at: https://wiki.openjdk.java.net/display/general/JBS+Overview "Further Note: The 'hgupdate-sync' label is used to denote bug records which are already fixed in a previous release. When code lines are synced a new backport record will be created with the hgupdate-sync label to capture the sync activity. For the most part, such records can be ignored since they indicate that the issue was resolved in an earlier update release." -Rob On 08/09/15 18:46, Omair Majid wrote: > Hi, > > * Rob McKenna [2015-09-08 13:24]: >> The 'hgupdate-sync' label is used to denote bug records which are already >> fixed in a previous release. When code lines get synced up, hgupdater will >> often create a new fix record to capture the sync activity. For the most >> part, such records can be ignored since they were fixed in a previous (8u) >> release. > > Thanks! Is there a place on the wiki or something where we could > document this to make it clearer for others? > > Thanks, > Omair > From omajid at redhat.com Mon Sep 21 16:34:50 2015 From: omajid at redhat.com (Omair Majid) Date: Mon, 21 Sep 2015 12:34:50 -0400 Subject: [8u-communication] JDK 8u60 released today! (and 8u72 timeline) In-Reply-To: <5600298B.3030703@oracle.com> References: <2132082391.12414344.1439997153546.JavaMail.zimbra@redhat.com> <55D4BC2F.3010407@oracle.com> <20150904212142.GD7303@redhat.com> <55ED9FD2.1010800@oracle.com> <1481269188.6802904.1441653339608.JavaMail.zimbra@redhat.com> <55EEF41A.5000000@oracle.com> <20150908170241.GC3460@redhat.com> <55EF19CF.8060608@oracle.com> <20150908174648.GE3460@redhat.com> <5600298B.3030703@oracle.com> Message-ID: <20150921163450.GA2886@redhat.com> * Rob McKenna [2015-09-21 12:00]: > Apologies for the delay. No problem! I didn't mean to imply that you should do this. It was more of me wondering out loud than anything :) So thank you *very* much for updating the wiki. Omair -- PGP Key: 66484681 (http://pgp.mit.edu/) Fingerprint = F072 555B 0A17 3957 4E95 0056 F286 F14F 6648 4681 From erik.joelsson at oracle.com Mon Sep 21 16:38:01 2015 From: erik.joelsson at oracle.com (Erik Joelsson) Date: Mon, 21 Sep 2015 09:38:01 -0700 Subject: [8u] Request for Approval and Review: JDK-8136691: 8u65/8u66 b14 Solaris builds failed on Linking libverify.so In-Reply-To: <55FC54F1.6030901@oracle.com> References: <55FC3EB5.2080905@oracle.com> <55FC42D4.3000703@oracle.com> <55FC54F1.6030901@oracle.com> Message-ID: <56003269.3040707@oracle.com> Thanks Tim, Since this is Hotspot I assume I need another reviewer. Any chance I could get one? /Erik On 2015-09-18 11:16, Tim Bell wrote: > Erik- > > The code review part looks good. > > Tim > > On 09/18/15 09:59, Se?n Coffey wrote: >> Approved but subject to review. Please add the noreg-build label. Add >> the 9-na label if it's not applicable to JDK 9. If it is applicable >> to JDK 9, create a backport record so that it doesn't get overlooked. >> >> Regards, >> Sean. >> >> On 18/09/15 17:41, Erik Joelsson wrote: >>> Hello, >>> >>> Please approve and review this fix for 8u. There is a discrepancy >>> between the Solaris and Linux makefiles for Hotspot, where a source >>> file is excluded for a certain configuration on Linux but not on >>> Solaris. This causes the build to fail on Solaris in that >>> configuration. >>> >>> Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8136691 >>> Patch: >>> diff --git a/make/solaris/makefiles/trace.make >>> b/make/solaris/makefiles/trace.make >>> --- a/make/solaris/makefiles/trace.make >>> +++ b/make/solaris/makefiles/trace.make >>> @@ -56,8 +56,12 @@ >>> ifeq ($(HAS_ALT_SRC), true) >>> TraceGeneratedNames += \ >>> traceRequestables.hpp \ >>> - traceEventControl.hpp \ >>> - traceProducer.cpp >>> + traceEventControl.hpp >>> + >>> +ifneq ($(INCLUDE_TRACE), false) >>> + TraceGeneratedNames += traceProducer.cpp >>> +endif >>> + >>> endif >>> >>> TraceGeneratedFiles = $(TraceGeneratedNames:%=$(TraceOutDir)/%) >>> >>> >>> /Erik >> > From mikael.vidstedt at oracle.com Mon Sep 21 19:38:22 2015 From: mikael.vidstedt at oracle.com (Mikael Vidstedt) Date: Mon, 21 Sep 2015 12:38:22 -0700 Subject: [8u] Request for Approval and Review: JDK-8136691: 8u65/8u66 b14 Solaris builds failed on Linking libverify.so In-Reply-To: <56003269.3040707@oracle.com> References: <55FC3EB5.2080905@oracle.com> <55FC42D4.3000703@oracle.com> <55FC54F1.6030901@oracle.com> <56003269.3040707@oracle.com> Message-ID: <56005CAE.5030902@oracle.com> Looks good! Cheers, Mikael On 2015-09-21 09:38, Erik Joelsson wrote: > Thanks Tim, > > Since this is Hotspot I assume I need another reviewer. Any chance I > could get one? > > /Erik > > On 2015-09-18 11:16, Tim Bell wrote: >> Erik- >> >> The code review part looks good. >> >> Tim >> >> On 09/18/15 09:59, Se?n Coffey wrote: >>> Approved but subject to review. Please add the noreg-build label. >>> Add the 9-na label if it's not applicable to JDK 9. If it is >>> applicable to JDK 9, create a backport record so that it doesn't get >>> overlooked. >>> >>> Regards, >>> Sean. >>> >>> On 18/09/15 17:41, Erik Joelsson wrote: >>>> Hello, >>>> >>>> Please approve and review this fix for 8u. There is a discrepancy >>>> between the Solaris and Linux makefiles for Hotspot, where a source >>>> file is excluded for a certain configuration on Linux but not on >>>> Solaris. This causes the build to fail on Solaris in that >>>> configuration. >>>> >>>> Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8136691 >>>> Patch: >>>> diff --git a/make/solaris/makefiles/trace.make >>>> b/make/solaris/makefiles/trace.make >>>> --- a/make/solaris/makefiles/trace.make >>>> +++ b/make/solaris/makefiles/trace.make >>>> @@ -56,8 +56,12 @@ >>>> ifeq ($(HAS_ALT_SRC), true) >>>> TraceGeneratedNames += \ >>>> traceRequestables.hpp \ >>>> - traceEventControl.hpp \ >>>> - traceProducer.cpp >>>> + traceEventControl.hpp >>>> + >>>> +ifneq ($(INCLUDE_TRACE), false) >>>> + TraceGeneratedNames += traceProducer.cpp >>>> +endif >>>> + >>>> endif >>>> >>>> TraceGeneratedFiles = $(TraceGeneratedNames:%=$(TraceOutDir)/%) >>>> >>>> >>>> /Erik >>> >> > From sundararajan.athijegannathan at oracle.com Tue Sep 22 02:56:49 2015 From: sundararajan.athijegannathan at oracle.com (Sundararajan Athijegannathan) Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2015 08:26:49 +0530 Subject: [8u-dev] Request for Approval: 8135262: Sanitize CodeInstaller API Message-ID: <5600C371.2080904@oracle.com> Hi Attila, +1 on backport changes. -Sundar From hannes.wallnoefer at oracle.com Tue Sep 22 07:22:13 2015 From: hannes.wallnoefer at oracle.com (Hannes Wallnoefer) Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2015 09:22:13 +0200 Subject: [8u-dev] Request for Approval: 8135262: Sanitize CodeInstaller API In-Reply-To: <34E40570-AC9C-4ED4-A7F3-7A2FD616CCBB@oracle.com> References: <34E40570-AC9C-4ED4-A7F3-7A2FD616CCBB@oracle.com> Message-ID: <560101A5.1040103@oracle.com> +1 on the backport as well. Hannes Am 2015-09-16 um 15:36 schrieb Attila Szegedi: > Please approve the two changesets below: > > Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8135262 > jdk9 webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~attila/8135262/webrev.jdk9 > jdk9 review thread: http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/nashorn-dev/2015-September/005185.html > > There is a trivial change in the import declarations of src/jdk/nashorn/tools/Shell.java; I?m attaching a 8u-dev webrev. The only change is in Shell.java import declarations. > http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~attila/8135262/webrev.jdk8u-dev > > This changeset will be followed immediately by the next one that fixed a broken test in the previous one: > > Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8135336 > jdk9 webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~attila/8135336/webrev.jdk9 > jdk9 review thread: http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/nashorn-dev/2015-September/005198.html > > These changes apply cleanly to jdk8u-dev after path reshuffling from modular source code layout. > > Thanks, > Attila. From hannes.wallnoefer at oracle.com Tue Sep 22 09:30:28 2015 From: hannes.wallnoefer at oracle.com (Hannes Wallnoefer) Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2015 11:30:28 +0200 Subject: [8u-dev] Request for Approval: 8135000: Number.prototype.toFixed returns wrong string for 0.5 and -0.5 Message-ID: <56011FB4.2060704@oracle.com> Please approve backport of 8135000 to 8u-dev. Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8135000 Webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~hannesw/8135000/webrev/ Review thread: http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/nashorn-dev/2015-September/005187.html Changes apply cleanly to jdk8u-dev after path reshuffling. Thanks, Hannes From hannes.wallnoefer at oracle.com Tue Sep 22 09:55:46 2015 From: hannes.wallnoefer at oracle.com (Hannes Wallnoefer) Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2015 11:55:46 +0200 Subject: [8u-dev] Request for Approval: 8087312: PropertyMapWrapper.equals should compare className Message-ID: <560125A2.8080403@oracle.com> Please approve backport of 8087312 to 8u-dev. Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8087312 Webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~hannesw/8087312/webrev.01/ Review thread: http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/nashorn-dev/2015-June/004753.html Changes apply cleanly to jdk8u-dev after path reshuffling. Thanks, Hannes From rob.mckenna at oracle.com Tue Sep 22 10:51:06 2015 From: rob.mckenna at oracle.com (Rob McKenna) Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2015 11:51:06 +0100 Subject: [8u-dev] Request for Approval: 8135262: Sanitize CodeInstaller API In-Reply-To: <34E40570-AC9C-4ED4-A7F3-7A2FD616CCBB@oracle.com> References: <34E40570-AC9C-4ED4-A7F3-7A2FD616CCBB@oracle.com> Message-ID: <5601329A.8000506@oracle.com> Approved -Rob On 16/09/15 14:36, Attila Szegedi wrote: > Please approve the two changesets below: > > Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8135262 > jdk9 webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~attila/8135262/webrev.jdk9 > jdk9 review thread: http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/nashorn-dev/2015-September/005185.html > > There is a trivial change in the import declarations of src/jdk/nashorn/tools/Shell.java; I?m attaching a 8u-dev webrev. The only change is in Shell.java import declarations. > http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~attila/8135262/webrev.jdk8u-dev > > This changeset will be followed immediately by the next one that fixed a broken test in the previous one: > > Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8135336 > jdk9 webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~attila/8135336/webrev.jdk9 > jdk9 review thread: http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/nashorn-dev/2015-September/005198.html > > These changes apply cleanly to jdk8u-dev after path reshuffling from modular source code layout. > > Thanks, > Attila. > From rob.mckenna at oracle.com Tue Sep 22 10:51:39 2015 From: rob.mckenna at oracle.com (Rob McKenna) Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2015 11:51:39 +0100 Subject: [8u-dev] Request for Approval: 8135000: Number.prototype.toFixed returns wrong string for 0.5 and -0.5 In-Reply-To: <56011FB4.2060704@oracle.com> References: <56011FB4.2060704@oracle.com> Message-ID: <560132BB.2010705@oracle.com> Approved -Rob On 22/09/15 10:30, Hannes Wallnoefer wrote: > Please approve backport of 8135000 to 8u-dev. > > Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8135000 > Webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~hannesw/8135000/webrev/ > Review thread: > http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/nashorn-dev/2015-September/005187.html > > > Changes apply cleanly to jdk8u-dev after path reshuffling. > > Thanks, > Hannes From rob.mckenna at oracle.com Tue Sep 22 10:51:46 2015 From: rob.mckenna at oracle.com (Rob McKenna) Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2015 11:51:46 +0100 Subject: [8u-dev] Request for Approval: 8087312: PropertyMapWrapper.equals should compare className In-Reply-To: <560125A2.8080403@oracle.com> References: <560125A2.8080403@oracle.com> Message-ID: <560132C2.30603@oracle.com> Approved -Rob On 22/09/15 10:55, Hannes Wallnoefer wrote: > Please approve backport of 8087312 to 8u-dev. > > Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8087312 > Webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~hannesw/8087312/webrev.01/ > Review thread: > http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/nashorn-dev/2015-June/004753.html > > Changes apply cleanly to jdk8u-dev after path reshuffling. > > Thanks, > Hannes From hannes.wallnoefer at oracle.com Wed Sep 23 13:19:59 2015 From: hannes.wallnoefer at oracle.com (Hannes Wallnoefer) Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2015 15:19:59 +0200 Subject: [8u-dev] Request for Approval: 8134569: Add tests for prototype callsites Message-ID: <5602A6FF.7080307@oracle.com> Please approve backport of 8134569 to 8u-dev. Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8134569 Webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~hannesw/8134569/webrev/ Review thread: http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/nashorn-dev/2015-September/005189.html This only adds a test script, changes apply cleanly to jdk8u-dev without change. Thanks, Hannes From hannes.wallnoefer at oracle.com Wed Sep 23 13:22:58 2015 From: hannes.wallnoefer at oracle.com (Hannes Wallnoefer) Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2015 15:22:58 +0200 Subject: [8u-dev] Request for Approval: 8134609: Allow constructors with same prototoype map to share the allocator map Message-ID: <5602A7B2.6070407@oracle.com> Please approve backport of 8134609 to 8u-dev. Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8134609 Webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~hannesw/8134609/webrev.01/ Review thread: http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/nashorn-dev/2015-September/005226.html Changes apply cleanly to jdk8u-dev after path reshuffling. Thanks, Hannes From rob.mckenna at oracle.com Wed Sep 23 14:37:11 2015 From: rob.mckenna at oracle.com (Rob McKenna) Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2015 15:37:11 +0100 Subject: [8u-dev] Request for Approval: 8134569: Add tests for prototype callsites In-Reply-To: <5602A6FF.7080307@oracle.com> References: <5602A6FF.7080307@oracle.com> Message-ID: <5602B917.5070309@oracle.com> Approved -Rob On 23/09/15 14:19, Hannes Wallnoefer wrote: > Please approve backport of 8134569 to 8u-dev. > > Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8134569 > Webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~hannesw/8134569/webrev/ > Review thread: > http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/nashorn-dev/2015-September/005189.html > > > This only adds a test script, changes apply cleanly to jdk8u-dev without > change. > > Thanks, > Hannes From rob.mckenna at oracle.com Wed Sep 23 14:37:16 2015 From: rob.mckenna at oracle.com (Rob McKenna) Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2015 15:37:16 +0100 Subject: [8u-dev] Request for Approval: 8134609: Allow constructors with same prototoype map to share the allocator map In-Reply-To: <5602A7B2.6070407@oracle.com> References: <5602A7B2.6070407@oracle.com> Message-ID: <5602B91C.4080707@oracle.com> Approved -Rob On 23/09/15 14:22, Hannes Wallnoefer wrote: > Please approve backport of 8134609 to 8u-dev. > > Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8134609 > Webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~hannesw/8134609/webrev.01/ > Review thread: > http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/nashorn-dev/2015-September/005226.html > > > Changes apply cleanly to jdk8u-dev after path reshuffling. > > Thanks, > Hannes From attila.szegedi at oracle.com Fri Sep 25 10:48:47 2015 From: attila.szegedi at oracle.com (Attila Szegedi) Date: Fri, 25 Sep 2015 12:48:47 +0200 Subject: [8u-dev] Request for Approval: 8134490: Dead var statement evacuation incorrectly descends into nested functions Message-ID: <9F6302BE-1530-4724-A38A-E3C8F9530E30@oracle.com> Please approve. Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8134490 jdk9 webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~attila/8134490/webrev.jdk9 jdk9 review thread: http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/nashorn-dev/2015-September/005312.html Changes apply cleanly to jdk8u-dev after path reshuffling from modular source code layout. Thanks, Attila. From rob.mckenna at oracle.com Fri Sep 25 13:36:05 2015 From: rob.mckenna at oracle.com (Rob McKenna) Date: Fri, 25 Sep 2015 14:36:05 +0100 Subject: Request for approval - 8135124 - com/sun/jndi/ldap/LdapTimeoutTest.java failed intermittently Message-ID: <56054DC5.1060403@oracle.com> Hi folks, Looking for approval to backport this simple test change. bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8135124 9 changeset: http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk9/dev/jdk/rev/0e0cb50613bb review: http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/core-libs-dev/2015-September/035407.html Patch applies cleanly. -Rob From rob.mckenna at oracle.com Fri Sep 25 13:39:41 2015 From: rob.mckenna at oracle.com (Rob McKenna) Date: Fri, 25 Sep 2015 14:39:41 +0100 Subject: [8u-dev] Request for approval - 8135124: com/sun/jndi/ldap/LdapTimeoutTest.java failed intermittently In-Reply-To: <56054DC5.1060403@oracle.com> References: <56054DC5.1060403@oracle.com> Message-ID: <56054E9D.1040609@oracle.com> ..with appropriate subject line. -Rob On 25/09/15 14:36, Rob McKenna wrote: > Hi folks, > > Looking for approval to backport this simple test change. > > bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8135124 > 9 changeset: http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk9/dev/jdk/rev/0e0cb50613bb > review: > http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/core-libs-dev/2015-September/035407.html > > > Patch applies cleanly. > > -Rob From rob.mckenna at oracle.com Fri Sep 25 14:03:57 2015 From: rob.mckenna at oracle.com (Rob McKenna) Date: Fri, 25 Sep 2015 15:03:57 +0100 Subject: [8u-dev] Request for approval - 8135307: CompletionFailure thrown when calling FieldDoc.type, if the field's type is missing Message-ID: <5605544D.1000107@oracle.com> Hi folks, Looking for approval for: Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8135307 9 Changeset: http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk9/dev/langtools/rev/8e76163b3f3a -Rob From rob.mckenna at oracle.com Fri Sep 25 14:11:24 2015 From: rob.mckenna at oracle.com (Rob McKenna) Date: Fri, 25 Sep 2015 15:11:24 +0100 Subject: [8u-dev] Request for approval - 8135307: CompletionFailure thrown when calling FieldDoc.type, if the field's type is missing In-Reply-To: <5605544D.1000107@oracle.com> References: <5605544D.1000107@oracle.com> Message-ID: <5605560C.2050801@oracle.com> As this backport did not apply cleanly, I also need a codereview: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~robm/8135307/webrev.01/ -Rob On 25/09/15 15:03, Rob McKenna wrote: > Hi folks, > > Looking for approval for: > > Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8135307 > 9 Changeset: http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk9/dev/langtools/rev/8e76163b3f3a > > -Rob From rob.mckenna at oracle.com Fri Sep 25 14:19:02 2015 From: rob.mckenna at oracle.com (Rob McKenna) Date: Fri, 25 Sep 2015 15:19:02 +0100 Subject: [8u-dev] Request for Approval: 8134490: Dead var statement evacuation incorrectly descends into nested functions In-Reply-To: <9F6302BE-1530-4724-A38A-E3C8F9530E30@oracle.com> References: <9F6302BE-1530-4724-A38A-E3C8F9530E30@oracle.com> Message-ID: <560557D6.30709@oracle.com> Approved -Rob On 25/09/15 11:48, Attila Szegedi wrote: > Please approve. > > Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8134490 > jdk9 webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~attila/8134490/webrev.jdk9 > jdk9 review thread: http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/nashorn-dev/2015-September/005312.html > > Changes apply cleanly to jdk8u-dev after path reshuffling from modular source code layout. > > Thanks, > Attila. > From david.buck at oracle.com Fri Sep 25 14:52:24 2015 From: david.buck at oracle.com (david buck) Date: Fri, 25 Sep 2015 23:52:24 +0900 Subject: [8u-dev] Request for approval - 8135124: com/sun/jndi/ldap/LdapTimeoutTest.java failed intermittently In-Reply-To: <56054E9D.1040609@oracle.com> References: <56054DC5.1060403@oracle.com> <56054E9D.1040609@oracle.com> Message-ID: <56055FA8.9090706@oracle.com> Approved. Cheers, -Buck On 2015/09/25 22:39, Rob McKenna wrote: > ..with appropriate subject line. > > -Rob > > On 25/09/15 14:36, Rob McKenna wrote: >> Hi folks, >> >> Looking for approval to backport this simple test change. >> >> bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8135124 >> 9 changeset: http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk9/dev/jdk/rev/0e0cb50613bb >> review: >> http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/core-libs-dev/2015-September/035407.html >> >> >> >> Patch applies cleanly. >> >> -Rob From sundararajan.athijegannathan at oracle.com Fri Sep 25 15:26:11 2015 From: sundararajan.athijegannathan at oracle.com (Sundararajan Athijegannathan) Date: Fri, 25 Sep 2015 20:56:11 +0530 Subject: [8u] approval request for 8137134: invokespecial on indirect super interface is generated by Java adapter generator Message-ID: <56056793.9000107@oracle.com> Please approve. bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8137134 jdk9 review thread: http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/nashorn-dev/2015-September/005314.html jdk8u webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~sundar/8137134/8u/webrev.00/ Apart from modular source layout difference, I had to make a slight change in makefiles to compile tests with -source 1.8 (so that test using "default" method can be compiled). Thanks, -Sundar From attila.szegedi at oracle.com Fri Sep 25 15:40:49 2015 From: attila.szegedi at oracle.com (Attila Szegedi) Date: Fri, 25 Sep 2015 17:40:49 +0200 Subject: [8u] approval request for 8137134: invokespecial on indirect super interface is generated by Java adapter generator In-Reply-To: <56056793.9000107@oracle.com> References: <56056793.9000107@oracle.com> Message-ID: +1 on backport changes > On Sep 25, 2015, at 5:26 PM, Sundararajan Athijegannathan wrote: > > Please approve. > > bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8137134 > jdk9 review thread: http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/nashorn-dev/2015-September/005314.html > jdk8u webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~sundar/8137134/8u/webrev.00/ > > Apart from modular source layout difference, I had to make a slight change in makefiles to compile tests with -source 1.8 (so that test using "default" method can be compiled). > > Thanks, > -Sundar From hannes.wallnoefer at oracle.com Fri Sep 25 15:43:50 2015 From: hannes.wallnoefer at oracle.com (Hannes Wallnoefer) Date: Fri, 25 Sep 2015 17:43:50 +0200 Subject: [8u] approval request for 8137134: invokespecial on indirect super interface is generated by Java adapter generator In-Reply-To: References: <56056793.9000107@oracle.com> Message-ID: <56056BB6.3020509@oracle.com> +1 from me as well. Am 2015-09-25 um 17:40 schrieb Attila Szegedi: > +1 on backport changes > >> On Sep 25, 2015, at 5:26 PM, Sundararajan Athijegannathan wrote: >> >> Please approve. >> >> bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8137134 >> jdk9 review thread: http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/nashorn-dev/2015-September/005314.html >> jdk8u webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~sundar/8137134/8u/webrev.00/ >> >> Apart from modular source layout difference, I had to make a slight change in makefiles to compile tests with -source 1.8 (so that test using "default" method can be compiled). >> >> Thanks, >> -Sundar From david.buck at oracle.com Fri Sep 25 16:01:45 2015 From: david.buck at oracle.com (david buck) Date: Sat, 26 Sep 2015 01:01:45 +0900 Subject: [8u] approval request for 8137134: invokespecial on indirect super interface is generated by Java adapter generator In-Reply-To: <56056BB6.3020509@oracle.com> References: <56056793.9000107@oracle.com> <56056BB6.3020509@oracle.com> Message-ID: <56056FE9.20107@oracle.com> Approved. Cheers, -Buck On 2015/09/26 0:43, Hannes Wallnoefer wrote: > +1 from me as well. > > Am 2015-09-25 um 17:40 schrieb Attila Szegedi: >> +1 on backport changes >> >>> On Sep 25, 2015, at 5:26 PM, Sundararajan Athijegannathan >>> wrote: >>> >>> Please approve. >>> >>> bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8137134 >>> jdk9 review thread: >>> http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/nashorn-dev/2015-September/005314.html >>> >>> jdk8u webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~sundar/8137134/8u/webrev.00/ >>> >>> Apart from modular source layout difference, I had to make a slight >>> change in makefiles to compile tests with -source 1.8 (so that test >>> using "default" method can be compiled). >>> >>> Thanks, >>> -Sundar > From naoto.sato at oracle.com Fri Sep 25 18:51:31 2015 From: naoto.sato at oracle.com (Naoto Sato) Date: Fri, 25 Sep 2015 11:51:31 -0700 Subject: [8u-dev] Request for approval - 8135307: CompletionFailure thrown when calling FieldDoc.type, if the field's type is missing In-Reply-To: <5605560C.2050801@oracle.com> References: <5605544D.1000107@oracle.com> <5605560C.2050801@oracle.com> Message-ID: <560597B3.9040108@oracle.com> Backport approved assuming the code review is done. Naoto On 9/25/15 7:11 AM, Rob McKenna wrote: > As this backport did not apply cleanly, I also need a codereview: > > http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~robm/8135307/webrev.01/ > > -Rob > > On 25/09/15 15:03, Rob McKenna wrote: >> Hi folks, >> >> Looking for approval for: >> >> Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8135307 >> 9 Changeset: >> http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk9/dev/langtools/rev/8e76163b3f3a >> >> -Rob From vicente.romero at oracle.com Fri Sep 25 19:09:44 2015 From: vicente.romero at oracle.com (Vicente-Arturo Romero-Zaldivar) Date: Fri, 25 Sep 2015 12:09:44 -0700 Subject: [8u-dev] Request for approval - 8135307: CompletionFailure thrown when calling FieldDoc.type, if the field's type is missing In-Reply-To: <5605560C.2050801@oracle.com> References: <5605544D.1000107@oracle.com> <5605560C.2050801@oracle.com> Message-ID: <56059BF8.6050808@oracle.com> Hi Rob, In test CompletionError, method start() in the switch statement, in the original test there is a code for case 9:, in the backport this code is not there. What's the reason for this? Thanks, Vicente On 09/25/2015 07:11 AM, Rob McKenna wrote: > As this backport did not apply cleanly, I also need a codereview: > > http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~robm/8135307/webrev.01/ > > -Rob > > On 25/09/15 15:03, Rob McKenna wrote: >> Hi folks, >> >> Looking for approval for: >> >> Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8135307 >> 9 Changeset: >> http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk9/dev/langtools/rev/8e76163b3f3a >> >> -Rob From maurizio.cimadamore at oracle.com Fri Sep 25 20:14:06 2015 From: maurizio.cimadamore at oracle.com (Maurizio Cimadamore) Date: Fri, 25 Sep 2015 21:14:06 +0100 Subject: [8u-dev] Request for approval - 8135307: CompletionFailure thrown when calling FieldDoc.type, if the field's type is missing In-Reply-To: <5605560C.2050801@oracle.com> References: <5605544D.1000107@oracle.com> <5605560C.2050801@oracle.com> Message-ID: <5605AB0E.5040902@oracle.com> Looks good Thanks Maurizio On 25/09/15 15:11, Rob McKenna wrote: > As this backport did not apply cleanly, I also need a codereview: > > http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~robm/8135307/webrev.01/ > > -Rob > > On 25/09/15 15:03, Rob McKenna wrote: >> Hi folks, >> >> Looking for approval for: >> >> Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8135307 >> 9 Changeset: >> http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk9/dev/langtools/rev/8e76163b3f3a >> >> -Rob From maurizio.cimadamore at oracle.com Fri Sep 25 20:20:15 2015 From: maurizio.cimadamore at oracle.com (Maurizio Cimadamore) Date: Fri, 25 Sep 2015 21:20:15 +0100 Subject: [8u-dev] Request for approval - 8135307: CompletionFailure thrown when calling FieldDoc.type, if the field's type is missing In-Reply-To: <56059BF8.6050808@oracle.com> References: <5605544D.1000107@oracle.com> <5605560C.2050801@oracle.com> <56059BF8.6050808@oracle.com> Message-ID: <5605AC7F.5040706@oracle.com> Good catch; I believe that's related with annotated receiver type (introduced with JDK 8's type annotations) ? If that's the case, is it possible that it's related to some other patch that you had (i.e. for 7) in which the feature is not available? Maurizio On 25/09/15 20:09, Vicente-Arturo Romero-Zaldivar wrote: > Hi Rob, > > In test CompletionError, method start() in the switch statement, in > the original test there is a code for case 9:, in the backport this > code is not there. What's the reason for this? > > Thanks, > Vicente > > On 09/25/2015 07:11 AM, Rob McKenna wrote: >> As this backport did not apply cleanly, I also need a codereview: >> >> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~robm/8135307/webrev.01/ >> >> -Rob >> >> On 25/09/15 15:03, Rob McKenna wrote: >>> Hi folks, >>> >>> Looking for approval for: >>> >>> Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8135307 >>> 9 Changeset: >>> http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk9/dev/langtools/rev/8e76163b3f3a >>> >>> -Rob > From attila.szegedi at oracle.com Mon Sep 28 06:42:04 2015 From: attila.szegedi at oracle.com (Attila Szegedi) Date: Mon, 28 Sep 2015 08:42:04 +0200 Subject: [8u-dev] Request for Approval: 8134488: var statement in if(false) block incorrectly evacuated into enclosing function Message-ID: <3B1FE040-0DEF-4939-A7F7-1F2AFBD905E8@oracle.com> Please approve. Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8134488 jdk9 webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~attila/8134488/webrev.jdk9 jdk9 review thread: http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/nashorn-dev/2015-September/005320.html Changes apply cleanly to jdk8u-dev after path reshuffling from modular source code layout. Thanks, Attila. From david.buck at oracle.com Mon Sep 28 06:58:47 2015 From: david.buck at oracle.com (David Buck) Date: Mon, 28 Sep 2015 15:58:47 +0900 Subject: [8u-dev] Request for Approval: 8134488: var statement in if(false) block incorrectly evacuated into enclosing function In-Reply-To: <3B1FE040-0DEF-4939-A7F7-1F2AFBD905E8@oracle.com> References: <3B1FE040-0DEF-4939-A7F7-1F2AFBD905E8@oracle.com> Message-ID: approved -Buck > On Sep 28, 2015, at 15:42, Attila Szegedi wrote: > > Please approve. > > Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8134488 > jdk9 webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~attila/8134488/webrev.jdk9 > jdk9 review thread: http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/nashorn-dev/2015-September/005320.html > > Changes apply cleanly to jdk8u-dev after path reshuffling from modular source code layout. > > Thanks, > Attila. From attila.szegedi at oracle.com Mon Sep 28 07:56:36 2015 From: attila.szegedi at oracle.com (Attila Szegedi) Date: Mon, 28 Sep 2015 09:56:36 +0200 Subject: [8u-dev] Request for Approval: 8134502: introduce abstraction for basic NodeVisitor usage Message-ID: <80778D9D-E402-43A5-8684-FA5BA5DF6DD2@oracle.com> Please approve. Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8134502 jdk9 webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~attila/8134502/webrev.jdk9 jdk9 review thread: http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/nashorn-dev/2015-September/005329.html Changes did not appear cleanly to jdk8u-dev after path reshuffling from modular source code layout, although the changes are minimal: - Parser API changes are omitted - RecompilableScriptFunctionData.java Hunk #2 failed to apply solely because its context is different ("IdentityHashMap? in 8 vs. "IdentityHashMap<>" in 9 on the line preceding the change). I got the jdk8u-changes reviewed separately: jdk8 webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~attila/8134502/webrev.jdk8u-dev jdk9 review thread: http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/nashorn-dev/2015-September/005332.html Thanks, Attila. From david.buck at oracle.com Mon Sep 28 08:08:58 2015 From: david.buck at oracle.com (David Buck) Date: Mon, 28 Sep 2015 17:08:58 +0900 Subject: [8u-dev] Request for Approval: 8134502: introduce abstraction for basic NodeVisitor usage In-Reply-To: <80778D9D-E402-43A5-8684-FA5BA5DF6DD2@oracle.com> References: <80778D9D-E402-43A5-8684-FA5BA5DF6DD2@oracle.com> Message-ID: <3B3AB194-AB1B-4AD4-8227-66401FD81AA8@oracle.com> approved Cheers, -Buck > On Sep 28, 2015, at 16:56, Attila Szegedi wrote: > > Please approve. > > Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8134502 > jdk9 webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~attila/8134502/webrev.jdk9 > jdk9 review thread: http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/nashorn-dev/2015-September/005329.html > > Changes did not appear cleanly to jdk8u-dev after path reshuffling from modular source code layout, although the changes are minimal: > - Parser API changes are omitted > - RecompilableScriptFunctionData.java Hunk #2 failed to apply solely because its context is different ("IdentityHashMap? in 8 vs. "IdentityHashMap<>" in 9 on the line preceding the change). > > I got the jdk8u-changes reviewed separately: > > jdk8 webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~attila/8134502/webrev.jdk8u-dev > jdk9 review thread: http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/nashorn-dev/2015-September/005332.html > > Thanks, > Attila. From sundararajan.athijegannathan at oracle.com Mon Sep 28 14:01:37 2015 From: sundararajan.athijegannathan at oracle.com (Sundararajan Athijegannathan) Date: Mon, 28 Sep 2015 19:31:37 +0530 Subject: [8u] approval request for 8137258: JSObjectLinker and BrowserJSObjectLinker should not expose internal JS objects Message-ID: <56094841.3090103@oracle.com> Please approve. Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8137258 jdk9 review thread: http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/nashorn-dev/2015-September/005335.html jdk8u webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~sundar/8137258/8u/webrev.00/ Backported 'as is' except for modular source layout difference. Thanks, -Sundar From david.buck at oracle.com Mon Sep 28 14:08:42 2015 From: david.buck at oracle.com (david buck) Date: Mon, 28 Sep 2015 23:08:42 +0900 Subject: [8u] approval request for 8137258: JSObjectLinker and BrowserJSObjectLinker should not expose internal JS objects In-Reply-To: <56094841.3090103@oracle.com> References: <56094841.3090103@oracle.com> Message-ID: <560949EA.5070909@oracle.com> approved Cheers, -Buck On 2015/09/28 23:01, Sundararajan Athijegannathan wrote: > Please approve. > > Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8137258 > jdk9 review thread: > http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/nashorn-dev/2015-September/005335.html > > jdk8u webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~sundar/8137258/8u/webrev.00/ > > Backported 'as is' except for modular source layout difference. > > Thanks, > -Sundar From jan.lahoda at oracle.com Mon Sep 28 15:11:10 2015 From: jan.lahoda at oracle.com (Jan Lahoda) Date: Mon, 28 Sep 2015 17:11:10 +0200 Subject: [8u-dev] Request for approval - 8135307: CompletionFailure thrown when calling FieldDoc.type, if the field's type is missing In-Reply-To: <56059BF8.6050808@oracle.com> References: <5605544D.1000107@oracle.com> <5605560C.2050801@oracle.com> <56059BF8.6050808@oracle.com> Message-ID: <5609588E.6080004@oracle.com> Hi Vicente, Good catch - I first created a JDK 7 version of the test (where the ExecutableMemberDoc.receiverType() does not exist, so I had to skip the sub-test), and then used it as the base for the JDK 8 test, and forgot to reinstate the sub-test. A fixed webrev is here: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~jlahoda/8135307-8/webrev.02/ How does it look? Thanks, Jan On 25.9.2015 21:09, Vicente-Arturo Romero-Zaldivar wrote: > Hi Rob, > > In test CompletionError, method start() in the switch statement, in the > original test there is a code for case 9:, in the backport this code is > not there. What's the reason for this? > > Thanks, > Vicente > > On 09/25/2015 07:11 AM, Rob McKenna wrote: >> As this backport did not apply cleanly, I also need a codereview: >> >> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~robm/8135307/webrev.01/ >> >> -Rob >> >> On 25/09/15 15:03, Rob McKenna wrote: >>> Hi folks, >>> >>> Looking for approval for: >>> >>> Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8135307 >>> 9 Changeset: >>> http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk9/dev/langtools/rev/8e76163b3f3a >>> >>> -Rob > From vicente.romero at oracle.com Mon Sep 28 17:32:52 2015 From: vicente.romero at oracle.com (Vicente-Arturo Romero-Zaldivar) Date: Mon, 28 Sep 2015 10:32:52 -0700 Subject: [8u-dev] Request for approval - 8135307: CompletionFailure thrown when calling FieldDoc.type, if the field's type is missing In-Reply-To: <5609588E.6080004@oracle.com> References: <5605544D.1000107@oracle.com> <5605560C.2050801@oracle.com> <56059BF8.6050808@oracle.com> <5609588E.6080004@oracle.com> Message-ID: <560979C4.2090309@oracle.com> Hi Jan, It looks OK for me, Thanks for the fix and the explanation, Vicente On 09/28/2015 08:11 AM, Jan Lahoda wrote: > Hi Vicente, > > Good catch - I first created a JDK 7 version of the test (where the > ExecutableMemberDoc.receiverType() does not exist, so I had to skip > the sub-test), and then used it as the base for the JDK 8 test, and > forgot to reinstate the sub-test. A fixed webrev is here: > http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~jlahoda/8135307-8/webrev.02/ > > How does it look? > > Thanks, > Jan > > On 25.9.2015 21:09, Vicente-Arturo Romero-Zaldivar wrote: >> Hi Rob, >> >> In test CompletionError, method start() in the switch statement, in the >> original test there is a code for case 9:, in the backport this code is >> not there. What's the reason for this? >> >> Thanks, >> Vicente >> >> On 09/25/2015 07:11 AM, Rob McKenna wrote: >>> As this backport did not apply cleanly, I also need a codereview: >>> >>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~robm/8135307/webrev.01/ >>> >>> -Rob >>> >>> On 25/09/15 15:03, Rob McKenna wrote: >>>> Hi folks, >>>> >>>> Looking for approval for: >>>> >>>> Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8135307 >>>> 9 Changeset: >>>> http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk9/dev/langtools/rev/8e76163b3f3a >>>> >>>> -Rob >> From ysr1729 at gmail.com Mon Sep 28 19:39:43 2015 From: ysr1729 at gmail.com (Srinivas Ramakrishna) Date: Mon, 28 Sep 2015 12:39:43 -0700 Subject: Version of jtreg to use for testing of specific JDK 8u-dev releases? Message-ID: Hello all -- What's the version iof jtreg to use for JDK 8u testing? I am seeing two failures in HotSpot regression tests that appear to be because of using a somewhat older version of jtreg and wanted to check if there's any way to tell what the correct vintage of jtreg recommended for testing specific jdk8u releases? Would it be safe to always get the latest jtreg for testing at any time, or are there tagged builds of jtreeg suitable for specific versions of jdk8u-dev testing? thanks for any pointers! -- ramki From jonathan.gibbons at oracle.com Mon Sep 28 20:39:23 2015 From: jonathan.gibbons at oracle.com (Jonathan Gibbons) Date: Mon, 28 Sep 2015 13:39:23 -0700 Subject: Version of jtreg to use for testing of specific JDK 8u-dev releases? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5609A57B.7050406@oracle.com> Hi, Generally, the recommended version of jtreg for most releases is a build from the latest sources with a tag of the form jtreg4.1-bNN. You can see the tags here: http://hg.openjdk.java.net/code-tools/jtreg/tags You can generally get a copy of a build of the latest version by following the links on the OpenJDK jtreg page, or by going to the Adopt OpenJDK group's pages. http://openjdk.java.net/jtreg/ https://adopt-openjdk.ci.cloudbees.com/job/jtreg/lastSuccessfulBuild/artifact/ (Oracle folk can also get builds from Oracle's internal servers.) The primary exception to the rule to use the latest tagged version is with regard to running tests in the OpenJDK jigsaw/jake forest. In this case, the recommendation is to use a build from the tip of the repository. Since you're asking about jdk8u, this does not apply to you. Hope that helps, -- Jon On 09/28/2015 12:39 PM, Srinivas Ramakrishna wrote: > Hello all -- > > What's the version iof jtreg to use for JDK 8u testing? > I am seeing two failures in HotSpot regression tests that appear to be > because of using a somewhat older version of jtreg and wanted to > check if there's any way to tell what the correct vintage of jtreg > recommended > for testing specific jdk8u releases? > > Would it be safe to always get the latest jtreg for testing at any time, or > are there > tagged builds of jtreeg suitable for specific versions of jdk8u-dev testing? > > thanks for any pointers! > -- ramki From attila.szegedi at oracle.com Wed Sep 30 09:19:47 2015 From: attila.szegedi at oracle.com (Attila Szegedi) Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2015 11:19:47 +0200 Subject: [8u-dev] Request for Approval: 8137333: Boundless soft caching of property map histories causes high memory pressure Message-ID: <1C7693E7-EE32-4C60-94D3-BDB9D99ED778@oracle.com> Please approve. Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8137333 jdk9 webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~attila/8137333/webrev.jdk9 jdk9 review thread: http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/nashorn-dev/2015-September/005341.html Changes apply cleanly to jdk8u-dev after path reshuffling from modular source code layout. Thanks, Attila. From david.buck at oracle.com Wed Sep 30 09:31:43 2015 From: david.buck at oracle.com (David Buck) Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2015 18:31:43 +0900 Subject: [8u-dev] Request for Approval: 8137333: Boundless soft caching of property map histories causes high memory pressure In-Reply-To: <1C7693E7-EE32-4C60-94D3-BDB9D99ED778@oracle.com> References: <1C7693E7-EE32-4C60-94D3-BDB9D99ED778@oracle.com> Message-ID: approved Cheers, -Buck > On Sep 30, 2015, at 18:19, Attila Szegedi wrote: > > Please approve. > > Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8137333 > jdk9 webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~attila/8137333/webrev.jdk9 > jdk9 review thread: http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/nashorn-dev/2015-September/005341.html > > Changes apply cleanly to jdk8u-dev after path reshuffling from modular source code layout. > > Thanks, > Attila. From jan.lahoda at oracle.com Wed Sep 30 10:37:23 2015 From: jan.lahoda at oracle.com (Jan Lahoda) Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2015 12:37:23 +0200 Subject: [8u-dev] request for approval to backport JDK-8133454: Update Java Compiler Error Message In-Reply-To: <54DD181C.30206@oracle.com> References: <54DD181C.30206@oracle.com> Message-ID: <560BBB63.2050402@oracle.com> Hello, I'd like to ask for an approval to backport the following fix to 8u-dev: Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8133454 jdk9 fix: http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk9/dev/langtools/rev/2fd864f1ff3a The patch applies cleanly to 8u-dev after unshuffling. Thanks, Jan From david.buck at oracle.com Wed Sep 30 11:26:41 2015 From: david.buck at oracle.com (david buck) Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2015 20:26:41 +0900 Subject: [8u-dev] request for approval to backport JDK-8133454: Update Java Compiler Error Message In-Reply-To: <560BBB63.2050402@oracle.com> References: <54DD181C.30206@oracle.com> <560BBB63.2050402@oracle.com> Message-ID: <560BC6F1.4000200@oracle.com> approved Cheers, -Buck On 2015/09/30 19:37, Jan Lahoda wrote: > Hello, > > I'd like to ask for an approval to backport the following fix to 8u-dev: > > Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8133454 > jdk9 fix: http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk9/dev/langtools/rev/2fd864f1ff3a > > The patch applies cleanly to 8u-dev after unshuffling. > > Thanks, > Jan From mikael.gerdin at oracle.com Wed Sep 30 12:12:18 2015 From: mikael.gerdin at oracle.com (Mikael Gerdin) Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2015 14:12:18 +0200 Subject: [8u-dev] Request for approval: 8133193: Memory leak in G1 because G1RootProcessor doesn't have desctructor Message-ID: <560BD1A2.4030607@oracle.com> Please the following backport, Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8133193 JDK8u webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~mgerdin/8133193_8u/ JDK8u review thread: http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/hotspot-gc-dev/2015-September/014819.html jdk9 webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~david/JDK-8133193/webrev.00 jdk9 review thread: http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/hotspot-gc-dev/2015-August/014387.html Changes did not appear cleanly to jdk8u-dev due to path changes in the hotspot repo and other surrounding code changes. Thanks /Mikael From david.buck at oracle.com Wed Sep 30 12:27:57 2015 From: david.buck at oracle.com (david buck) Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2015 21:27:57 +0900 Subject: [8u-dev] Request for approval: 8133193: Memory leak in G1 because G1RootProcessor doesn't have desctructor In-Reply-To: <560BD1A2.4030607@oracle.com> References: <560BD1A2.4030607@oracle.com> Message-ID: <560BD54D.3090903@oracle.com> approved Cheers, -Buck On 2015/09/30 21:12, Mikael Gerdin wrote: > Please the following backport, > > Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8133193 > > JDK8u webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~mgerdin/8133193_8u/ > JDK8u review thread: > http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/hotspot-gc-dev/2015-September/014819.html > > > jdk9 webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~david/JDK-8133193/webrev.00 > jdk9 review thread: > http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/hotspot-gc-dev/2015-August/014387.html > > > Changes did not appear cleanly to jdk8u-dev due to path changes in the > hotspot repo and other surrounding code changes. > > Thanks > /Mikael From erik.joelsson at oracle.com Wed Sep 30 12:43:44 2015 From: erik.joelsson at oracle.com (Erik Joelsson) Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2015 14:43:44 +0200 Subject: [8u] Request for Approval and Review: JDK-8136980: build for 8u65 and 8u66 for solaris platforms is failing Message-ID: <560BD900.9000308@oracle.com> Hello, Please approve and review this fix for 8u. My last fix for this issue, JDK-8136691, was not enough. I made a mistake while verifying the fix and the problem is still there. There are more discrepancies between Solaris and the other platform makefiles. The excludeSrc.gmk file is not included anywhere when building on Solaris. The variable Src_Files_EXCLUDE is overwritten in vm.make instead of appended to, so even when including excludeSrc.gmk, it wasn't enough. The other platform specific buildtree.make files also set INCLUDE_TRACE in the generated makefile. Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8136980 Webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~erikj/8136980/webrev.hotspot.01/ /Erik From magnus.ihse.bursie at oracle.com Wed Sep 30 13:30:38 2015 From: magnus.ihse.bursie at oracle.com (Magnus Ihse Bursie) Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2015 15:30:38 +0200 Subject: [8u] Request for Approval and Review: JDK-8136980: build for 8u65 and 8u66 for solaris platforms is failing In-Reply-To: <560BD900.9000308@oracle.com> References: <560BD900.9000308@oracle.com> Message-ID: <560BE3FE.7060103@oracle.com> On 2015-09-30 14:43, Erik Joelsson wrote: > Hello, > > Please approve and review this fix for 8u. > > My last fix for this issue, JDK-8136691, was not enough. I made a > mistake while verifying the fix and the problem is still there. > > There are more discrepancies between Solaris and the other platform > makefiles. The excludeSrc.gmk file is not included anywhere when > building on Solaris. The variable Src_Files_EXCLUDE is overwritten in > vm.make instead of appended to, so even when including excludeSrc.gmk, > it wasn't enough. The other platform specific buildtree.make files > also set INCLUDE_TRACE in the generated makefile. > > Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8136980 > Webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~erikj/8136980/webrev.hotspot.01/ > > /Erik Looks good to me. /Magnus From rob.mckenna at oracle.com Wed Sep 30 13:40:25 2015 From: rob.mckenna at oracle.com (Rob McKenna) Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2015 14:40:25 +0100 Subject: [8u] Request for Approval and Review: JDK-8136980: build for 8u65 and 8u66 for solaris platforms is failing In-Reply-To: <560BE3FE.7060103@oracle.com> References: <560BD900.9000308@oracle.com> <560BE3FE.7060103@oracle.com> Message-ID: <560BE649.7080904@oracle.com> Approved. -Rob On 30/09/15 14:30, Magnus Ihse Bursie wrote: > On 2015-09-30 14:43, Erik Joelsson wrote: >> Hello, >> >> Please approve and review this fix for 8u. >> >> My last fix for this issue, JDK-8136691, was not enough. I made a >> mistake while verifying the fix and the problem is still there. >> >> There are more discrepancies between Solaris and the other platform >> makefiles. The excludeSrc.gmk file is not included anywhere when >> building on Solaris. The variable Src_Files_EXCLUDE is overwritten in >> vm.make instead of appended to, so even when including excludeSrc.gmk, >> it wasn't enough. The other platform specific buildtree.make files >> also set INCLUDE_TRACE in the generated makefile. >> >> Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8136980 >> Webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~erikj/8136980/webrev.hotspot.01/ >> >> /Erik > > Looks good to me. > > /Magnus