Re: RFR: 8278275: Initial nroff manpage generation for JDK 19

2021-12-13 Thread David Holmes
On Mon, 13 Dec 2021 05:51:37 GMT, David Holmes wrote: > Trivial update to change the version to 19-ea, and update the single > reference to the "current release". > > Content changes for 19 will follow. > > Thanks, > David Thanks for the reviews Erik, Jon and Iris! - PR: https:/

Integrated: 8278275: Initial nroff manpage generation for JDK 19

2021-12-13 Thread David Holmes
On Mon, 13 Dec 2021 05:51:37 GMT, David Holmes wrote: > Trivial update to change the version to 19-ea, and update the single > reference to the "current release". > > Content changes for 19 will follow. > > Thanks, > David This pull request has now been integrated. Changeset: 624f3094 Author

Re: RFR: 8278275: Initial nroff manpage generation for JDK 19

2021-12-13 Thread Iris Clark
On Mon, 13 Dec 2021 05:51:37 GMT, David Holmes wrote: > Trivial update to change the version to 19-ea, and update the single > reference to the "current release". > > Content changes for 19 will follow. > > Thanks, > David Marked as reviewed by iris (Reviewer). - PR: https://git

Re: RFR: 8278275: Initial nroff manpage generation for JDK 19

2021-12-13 Thread Jonathan Gibbons
On Mon, 13 Dec 2021 05:51:37 GMT, David Holmes wrote: > Trivial update to change the version to 19-ea, and update the single > reference to the "current release". > > Content changes for 19 will follow. > > Thanks, > David Marked as reviewed by jjg (Reviewer). - PR: https://git.

Re: glibc 2.12 support

2021-12-13 Thread Florian Weimer
* erik joelsson: > Hello Florian, > > We still build with glibc 2.12 in the sysroot at Oracle as we still > support Oracle Linux 6 (which uses glibc 2.12), so I'm afraid we still > need it. Fair enough. I will tack another thing to the side of this then. 8-> Thanks, Florian

Re: glibc 2.12 support

2021-12-13 Thread erik . joelsson
Hello Florian, We still build with glibc 2.12 in the sysroot at Oracle as we still support Oracle Linux 6 (which uses glibc 2.12), so I'm afraid we still need it. /Erik On 2021-12-13 05:21, Florian Weimer wrote: It seems that building against glibc 2.12 is still supported. Is this somethin

Re: RFR: 8278275: Initial nroff manpage generation for JDK 19

2021-12-13 Thread Erik Joelsson
On Mon, 13 Dec 2021 05:51:37 GMT, David Holmes wrote: > Trivial update to change the version to 19-ea, and update the single > reference to the "current release". > > Content changes for 19 will follow. > > Thanks, > David Looks good to me. - Marked as reviewed by erikj (Reviewe

glibc 2.12 support

2021-12-13 Thread Florian Weimer
It seems that building against glibc 2.12 is still supported. Is this something that is still needed? I'm mostly concerned with this fallback code on x86-64: // Unfortunately we have to bring all these macros here from vsyscall.h // to be able to compile on old linuxes. #define __NR_vgetcpu 2

Re: RFR: 8277204: Implementation of JEP 8264130: PAC-RET protection for Linux/AArch64 [v10]

2021-12-13 Thread Alan Hayward
On Mon, 13 Dec 2021 09:56:41 GMT, Andrew Haley wrote: >> You can support one without the other. >> The architecture allows you to have one without the other. >> The GCC flag is an enum of "none|standard|pac-ret[+leaf]|bti", with some of >> them changing depending on which cpu you specify to -mcp

Re: RFR: 8277204: Implementation of JEP 8264130: PAC-RET protection for Linux/AArch64 [v10]

2021-12-13 Thread Andrew Haley
On Mon, 13 Dec 2021 09:50:26 GMT, Alan Hayward wrote: > You can support one without the other. The architecture allows you to have > one without the other. The GCC flag is an enum of > "none|standard|pac-ret[+leaf]|bti", with some of them changing depending on > which cpu you specify to -mcpu

Re: RFR: 8277204: Implementation of JEP 8264130: PAC-RET protection for Linux/AArch64 [v10]

2021-12-13 Thread Alan Hayward
On Sun, 12 Dec 2021 10:19:30 GMT, Andrew Haley wrote: >> `-mbranch-protection` switches on both PAC-RET and BTI. This PR only covers >> a use of PAC that looks very ROP-focused to me. > > True, because we don't (yet) support BTI. Is there any point having two > separate flags for BTI and PAC-RE