RFR 8187742 Minimal set of bootstrap methods for dynamic constants

Paul Sandoz paul.sandoz at oracle.com
Thu Nov 9 19:06:00 UTC 2017

Hi Volker,

> On 9 Nov 2017, at 01:01, Volker Simonis <volker.simonis at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Paul,
> just some quick process-related questions.
> Is this intended to be targeted for jdk 10?

Yes, that’s what we are aiming for. I am front loading reviews ahead of a propose to target (which should hopefully happen soon) to make better use of time given the shorter cycles, thus increasing the quality and giving heads up to other developers like yourself who are responsible for other platforms.

> Is the current implementation already available in a separate
> repository and/or branch? I've read in the RFR for 8186046 that some
> parts are currently being refined in the amber repository. Or is the
> complete implementation already available there?

A super set of functionality is present in the amber repo under the condy branch. We pealed a sub-set of that off and created patches for the idk/hs repo tracked in:

  Minimal ConstantDynamic support
  Tool support for ConstantDynamic

  Minimal set of bootstrap methods for dynamic constants

While these are under review they might diverge a little from the condy branch in the amber repo but i will sync back up in batches.

> If I want to port this to ppc64, what's the best way to start and what
> do I need? Is it just the two webrevs for 8187742 and 8186046 on top
> of the jdk hs repo? Or is it a branch of the amber repo?

Yes, and focus on the following applied to the jdk/hs repo:


There are tests in that patch that are currently targeted to run only on x86 that would otherwise tickle failures on other platforms.

> You may know that there's currently a discussion going on about what
> is a JEP and what's the right way to implement and integrate a JEP
> into the mainline. The general idea is that only 'finished' JEPs will
> be targeted and integrated into the always feature complete main line.
> So is this and the review for 8186046 about the integration into the
> jdk repo (which shouldn't happen before the JEP is not targeted for
> jdk10) or is it just the review before the JEP can actually be
> targeted? This is important because there's not much time before the
> jdk10 repos will enter Rampdown phase 1 and we would still have to
> port this to ppc (and also ARM/SPARC) if it will be targeted for jdk
> 10.
> I don't want to question the merits and quality of the current
> implementation which I'm sure are great. For me as an external
> observer its just hard to oversee the current status of the
> implementation.

I hear you, thanks for your patience. Is it a little clearer now?

From my own perspective this is the first flight over the new release cycle territory, the ride might be a little bumpy while we learn to pilot this better :-)


More information about the core-libs-dev mailing list