Re: RFR: 8331942: On Linux aarch64, CDS archives should be using 64K alignment by default
On Thu, 9 May 2024 05:04:47 GMT, Thomas Stuefe wrote: >> On Linux aarch64, a JVM may encounter three different page sizes: 4K, 64K, >> and (when run on Mac M1 hardware) 16K. >> >> Since forgetting to specify `--enable-compatible-cds-alignment` is a common >> error that is only noticed when running the produced JVM on hardware with >> different page size, we propose to enable that option by default on Linux >> aarch64. The cost is a moderate increase in CDS archive size (about 300K). >> >> I tested this patch on: >> - x64 Linux >> - x64 Linux, crossbuilding to aarch64 >> - building natively on aarch64 Linux > > Does anyone else have an opinion on this matter? The question is: > > "Should we enable cds-compatible alignment in the configure options by > default generally, not only for Linux aarch64" ? > > This would, in addition to the proposed change affecting Linux on aarch64, > also affect MacOS x64. JVMs built there would be able to run, by default, in > Rosetta. At the price of sligthly increased archive size of a dozen KB or so. > > If nobody objects, I will do that since I like the simplicity of it. @tstuefe We already have an issue to reset the default to true (raised by @iklam) https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8331952 - PR Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/19142#issuecomment-2102202184
Re: RFR: 8311302: Allow for jlinking a custom runtime without packaged modules being present [v24]
On Fri, 5 Apr 2024 09:31:18 GMT, Severin Gehwolf wrote: >> Kind of aligning with the "Donaudampfschiffahrtsgesellschaftskapitän" >> prejudice of German. ;-) >> >> >> >> (In Sweden, we have "flaggstångsknoppsförgyllare" so you are not alone) > > Hah! My kids just recently informed me about > "Donaudampfschiffahrtsgesellschaftskapitänsmützenproductionsstätte"... or > whatever else you can come up with :) Hmm, that's nothing. Look up Rhabarberbarbara on YouTube. - PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/14787#discussion_r1553444805
Re: RFR: 8326509: Clean up JNIEXPORT in Hotspot after JDK-8017234 [v4]
On Tue, 27 Feb 2024 15:35:56 GMT, Ludovic Henry wrote: >> It does not sound like anyone object to the removal of `JNIEXPORT` for >> `das1`, then. >> >> Or should I just remove the entire function, if it serves no purpose that >> any current maintainers know or care about? > > You can probably remove the entire function given it's an indirection to > `das` anyway. I remember using it for debugging during the first stages of > the Windows-AArch64 port but I've long forgotten about it. @luhenry @magicus das1 was added when we were implementing the AArch64 port in order to help us integrate the debugger support we provided when running JITted code on our AArch64 simulator into gdb. Now that we have real hardware it is redundant. - PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/17967#discussion_r1504535787
