On Mon, 26 Oct 2026 06:48:57 GMT, David Holmes <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> So the intent here is to change what the current JEP-401 specification is >>> and to ship this variant instead for the first preview? >> >> There are a number of JVMTI issues with value class and strict fields. Most >> of these issues were identified during the review of the changes for the >> initial JEP 401 integration - the agreement was to work on them the JEP >> integration. So hopefully most will be addressed before the fork in Dec. > >> the agreement was to work on them the JEP integration > > Understood. I just have no idea what process to follow here with regards to > CSR requests or updating the JEP and it's CSR request to reflect the final > JVM TI changes. @dholmes-ora wrote: > Understood. I just have no idea what process to follow here with regards to > CSR requests or updating the JEP and it's CSR request to reflect the final > JVM TI changes. I hope, it is okay to create a CSR specific to this issue. We had just one CSR for all SVC spec updates for first preview because all changes were collected in the Valhalla repo. ------------- PR Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/33526#issuecomment-6433528269
