[11] Request for sponsor to putback fix for JDK-8201509: Zero : S390 31bit (S390 and not _LP64) atomic_copy64 inline assembler is wrong (original) (raw)
Aleksey Shipilev shade at redhat.com
Fri Apr 27 14:34:17 UTC 2018
- Previous message: [11] Request for sponsor to putback fix for JDK-8201509: Zero : S390 31bit (S390 and not _LP64) atomic_copy64 inline assembler is wrong
- Next message: URGENT RFR(XS): 8202386 [BACKOUT] fix for 8200235
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
I'll do it.
In future, you don't need to start another thread for requests like these, you can just ask for the sponsor in the same RFR thread at hotspot-dev@
-Aleksey
On 04/27/2018 04:19 PM, Chris Phillips wrote:
Hi,
I'd like find a JDK11 committer to sponsor and putback this fix : JDK-8201509: Zero : S390 31bit (S390 and not LP64) atomiccopy64 inline assembler is wrong Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8201509 WebRev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~chrisphi/JDK-8201509/webrev.3 Changeset: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~chrisphi/JDK-8201509/webrev.3/jdk.changeset Review thread: http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/hotspot-dev/2018April/031626.html Testing: Builds itself on s390 31bit with some other local patches to avoid type mismatches. Chris
- Previous message: [11] Request for sponsor to putback fix for JDK-8201509: Zero : S390 31bit (S390 and not _LP64) atomic_copy64 inline assembler is wrong
- Next message: URGENT RFR(XS): 8202386 [BACKOUT] fix for 8200235
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]