On Thu, 12 Nov 2026 07:03:13 GMT, Jaikiran Pai <[email protected]> wrote:
> Can I please get a review of this change which updates the JDK's in-tree > source of zlib library? > > zlib upstream released 1.4 version of the library recently. The JDK currently > has 1.3.2 version's source. This change updates it to 1.4 version. The > upstream zlib changes between 1.3.2 and 1.4 are available here > https://github.com/madler/zlib/compare/v1.3.2...v1.4. > > This PR has no other changes than those upstream changes. tier1, tier2, tier3 > continue to pass after these changes. > > --------- > - [x] I confirm that I make this contribution in accordance with the [OpenJDK > Interim AI Policy](https://openjdk.org/legal/ai). Hello Alan, > I assume you've tested configuring with --with-zlib to make sure it builds on > all platforms Correct, I did use `--with-zlib=bundled` to verify against all platforms in mainline. They built fine and tier1, tier2, tier3 testing went fine too. Having said that, now that you mentioned it, I will also run this against update releases which have some additional platforms, just to be sure that nothing additional is needed in these changes. That also reminds me that we had run into a problem on AIX the last time we had done the zlib source upgrade. Matthias @MBaesken would you be able to build and test this change against your setups? > as the system zlib is used everywhere except Windows. Note that we have been using bundled zlib even on macosx aarch64 since Java 19 https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8286623. That was due to a bug in the (system) zlib shipped in macos https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8282954. Apple has fixed it in macos 13.x but to switch it back to "system" on that platform requires extensive testing which we haven't done. Plus, it was never explained what the underlying issue was or what the fix was, so it's not completely clear whether just extensive testing is enough for switching back to "system" on that platform. ------------- PR Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/33862#issuecomment-6820434706
