On Tue, 3 Nov 2020 20:37:07 GMT, Jorn Vernee wrote:
>> Add 32-bit-safe version of jlong <-> casts to libJNIPoint.c
>>
>> This removes the reported warning.
>>
>> Note that the _LP64 macro was not being propagated to the benchmark native
>> libraries on Windows. The comment says that this is du
On Tue, 3 Nov 2020 20:12:35 GMT, Magnus Ihse Bursie wrote:
>> Ok, will do. (FWIW, you can expand the context of the diff with the arrow
>> buttons on the left side of the view. Above or below the line numbers)
>
> (Yes, I know. I just didn't think that doing so would reveal anything about
> AI
On Tue, 3 Nov 2020 20:37:07 GMT, Jorn Vernee wrote:
>> Add 32-bit-safe version of jlong <-> casts to libJNIPoint.c
>>
>> This removes the reported warning.
>>
>> Note that the _LP64 macro was not being propagated to the benchmark native
>> libraries on Windows. The comment says that this is du
On Tue, 3 Nov 2020 20:37:07 GMT, Jorn Vernee wrote:
>> Add 32-bit-safe version of jlong <-> casts to libJNIPoint.c
>>
>> This removes the reported warning.
>>
>> Note that the _LP64 macro was not being propagated to the benchmark native
>> libraries on Windows. The comment says that this is du
On Tue, 3 Nov 2020 20:37:07 GMT, Jorn Vernee wrote:
>> Add 32-bit-safe version of jlong <-> casts to libJNIPoint.c
>>
>> This removes the reported warning.
>>
>> Note that the _LP64 macro was not being propagated to the benchmark native
>> libraries on Windows. The comment says that this is du
On Tue, 3 Nov 2020 19:08:05 GMT, Jorn Vernee wrote:
>> I knew this looks familiar. Look at [existing macros in
>> jlong_md.h](https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/blob/master/src/java.base/unix/native/libjava/jlong_md.h#L67-L81)
>> and use/match them? There is a little difference in casting through `
> Add 32-bit-safe version of jlong <-> casts to libJNIPoint.c
>
> This removes the reported warning.
>
> Note that the _LP64 macro was not being propagated to the benchmark native
> libraries on Windows. The comment says that this is due to pack200, but since
> this has been removed [1], it see
On Tue, 3 Nov 2020 19:41:49 GMT, Jorn Vernee wrote:
>> Yes, that sounds good. I did not notice this (still not used to github
>> reviews, which I think has too little context by default).
>
> Ok, will do. (FWIW, you can expand the context of the diff with the arrow
> buttons on the left side of
On Tue, 3 Nov 2020 19:16:02 GMT, Magnus Ihse Bursie wrote:
>> Thanks for the suggestion.
>>
>> Note the code that adds _LP64 for the JVM (below):
>>
>> if test "x$FLAGS_OS" != xaix; then
>> # xlc on AIX defines _LP64=1 by default and issues a warning if we
>> redefine it.
>> $1
On Tue, 3 Nov 2020 18:52:52 GMT, Jorn Vernee wrote:
>> make/autoconf/flags-cflags.m4 line 667:
>>
>>> 665:
>>> 666: if test "x$FLAGS_CPU_BITS" = x64; then
>>> 667: if test "x$FLAGS_OS" = xlinux || test "x$FLAGS_OS" = xmacosx ||
>>> test "x$FLAGS_OS" = xwindows; then
>>
>> At this point,
On Tue, 3 Nov 2020 18:30:46 GMT, Aleksey Shipilev wrote:
>> Add 32-bit-safe version of jlong <-> casts to libJNIPoint.c
>>
>> This removes the reported warning.
>>
>> Note that the _LP64 macro was not being propagated to the benchmark native
>> libraries on Windows. The comment says that this
On Tue, 3 Nov 2020 18:46:29 GMT, Magnus Ihse Bursie wrote:
>> Add 32-bit-safe version of jlong <-> casts to libJNIPoint.c
>>
>> This removes the reported warning.
>>
>> Note that the _LP64 macro was not being propagated to the benchmark native
>> libraries on Windows. The comment says that thi
On Mon, 2 Nov 2020 18:36:32 GMT, Jorn Vernee wrote:
> Add 32-bit-safe version of jlong <-> casts to libJNIPoint.c
>
> This removes the reported warning.
>
> Note that the _LP64 macro was not being propagated to the benchmark native
> libraries on Windows. The comment says that this is due to p
On Mon, 2 Nov 2020 18:36:32 GMT, Jorn Vernee wrote:
> Add 32-bit-safe version of jlong <-> casts to libJNIPoint.c
>
> This removes the reported warning.
>
> Note that the _LP64 macro was not being propagated to the benchmark native
> libraries on Windows. The comment says that this is due to p
On Mon, 2 Nov 2020 18:36:32 GMT, Jorn Vernee wrote:
> Add 32-bit-safe version of jlong <-> casts to libJNIPoint.c
>
> This removes the reported warning.
>
> Note that the _LP64 macro was not being propagated to the benchmark native
> libraries on Windows. The comment says that this is due to p
On Tue, 3 Nov 2020 17:40:32 GMT, Coleen Phillimore wrote:
>> Add 32-bit-safe version of jlong <-> casts to libJNIPoint.c
>>
>> This removes the reported warning.
>>
>> Note that the _LP64 macro was not being propagated to the benchmark native
>> libraries on Windows. The comment says that this
On Tue, 3 Nov 2020 17:40:38 GMT, Coleen Phillimore wrote:
>> Add 32-bit-safe version of jlong <-> casts to libJNIPoint.c
>>
>> This removes the reported warning.
>>
>> Note that the _LP64 macro was not being propagated to the benchmark native
>> libraries on Windows. The comment says that this
On Tue, 3 Nov 2020 17:42:08 GMT, Jorn Vernee wrote:
>> test/micro/org/openjdk/bench/jdk/incubator/foreign/points/support/libJNIPoint.c
>> line 32:
>>
>>> 30: #define PTR_TO_JLONG(value) ((jlong) (value))
>>> 31: #else
>>> 32: #define JLONG_TO_PTR(value, type) ((type*) (jint) (value))
>>
>> May
Add 32-bit-safe version of jlong <-> casts to libJNIPoint.c
This removes the reported warning.
Note that the _LP64 macro was not being propagated to the benchmark native
libraries on Windows. The comment says that this is due to pack200, but since
this has been removed [1], it seemed safe to pr
19 matches
Mail list logo
