Changes between Initial Version and Version 2 of Ticket #71049
- Timestamp:
- Oct 7, 2024, 2:24:14 AM (7 hours ago)
Legend:
- Unmodified
- Added
- Removed
- Modified
-
Ticket #71049 – Description
initial v2 12 12 }}} 13 13 14 It's unclear whether this is an upstream issue; the failing code in question is not tagged upstream for `openjdk21`, but is delivered in the tarball anyway. Upstream still claims to support from `10.12` for `openjdk21`.14 ~~It's unclear whether this is an upstream issue; the failing code in question is not tagged upstream for `openjdk21`, but is delivered in the tarball anyway. Upstream still claims to support from `10.12` for `openjdk21`.~~ EDIT: Was backported. 15 15 16 However, I don't think it should not fail in any case (and clearly other builds of `openjdk21` e.g. from IBM, Azul, etc. are successful/usable on `10.15` and `10.14`), because the fragment in question is guarded with Objective C pragma `@available`, viz.16 ~~However, I don't think it should not fail in any case (and clearly other builds of `openjdk21` e.g. from IBM, Azul, etc. are successful/usable on `10.15` and `10.14`), because the fragment in question is guarded with Objective C pragma `@available`, viz.~~ EDIT: Wrong again, doesn't work like `#ifdef`. 17 17 18 18 {{{ … … 32 32 }}} 33 33 34 However, it's not clear why this is not being honoured on builds on 10.14 and 10.15. I have to assume there is compiler support for this `@available` syntax (apparently since [https://stackoverflow.com/questions/46965347/objective-c-available-guard-anded-with-more-conditions Xcode 9 / LLVM 5]), since that does not generate an error. 34 ~~However, it's not clear why this is not being honoured on builds on 10.14 and 10.15. I have to assume there is compiler support for this `@available` syntax (apparently since [https://stackoverflow.com/questions/46965347/objective-c-available-guard-anded-with-more-conditions Xcode 9 / LLVM 5]), since that does not generate an error.~~