On Thu, 27 Aug 2026 07:57:30 GMT, Matthias Baesken <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Maybe it will be better to include some variant of just "Windows_ALL" or >> something like that? So it will not be necessary to update these checks for >> future Windows versions? I do not think we will enable D3D for the basic >> driver or on Intel. > >> Maybe it will be better to include some variant of just "Windows_ALL" or >> something like that? So it will not be necessary to update these checks for >> future Windows versions? I do not think we will enable D3D for the basic >> driver or on Intel. > > We have already 'OS_ALL' which is in fact 'WINDOWS_ALL' because the D3D code > is only relevant on Windows. > So why have both 'OS_ALL' and 'WINDOWS_ALL' ? OS_ALL is a combination of our flags. If a new OS is released we will need to add a new flag that will be combined into OS_ALL. But we need something different: if the blocked driver is marked as OS_ALL or something like that, we should block it on all Windows every time. So maybe we should create WINDOWS_ALL or KNOWN_OS/etc and use OS_ALL for all versions. Note in the current code the "OS_UNKNOWN" blocks nothing. And overall current code looks too complicated for the purpose. ------------- PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/32011#discussion_r4078328972
