8154847: Rendering is incorrect or not visible with StageStyle.UNIFIED on some graphics cards

[crschnick]

Hi all,

This pull request contains a backport of commit 28bde153 from the openjdk/jfx repository.

The commit being backported was authored by Christopher Schnick on 5 Feb 2026 and was reviewed by Lukasz Kostyra and Kevin Rushforth.

Thanks!

---

Progress

• Change must not contain extraneous whitespace
• Commit message must refer to an issue
• JDK-8154847 needs maintainer approval

Issue

• JDK-8154847: Rendering is incorrect or not visible with StageStyle.UNIFIED on some graphics cards (Bug - P3 - Approved)

Reviewing

Using git

Checkout this PR locally:
$ git fetch https://git.openjdk.org/jfx26u.git pull/6/head:pull/6
$ git checkout pull/6

Update a local copy of the PR:
$ git checkout pull/6
$ git pull https://git.openjdk.org/jfx26u.git pull/6/head

Using Skara CLI tools

Checkout this PR locally:
$ git pr checkout 6

View PR using the GUI difftool:
$ git pr show -t 6

Using diff file

Download this PR as a diff file:
https://git.openjdk.org/jfx26u/pull/6.diff

Using Webrev

Link to Webrev Comment

[bridgekeeper]

👋 Welcome back crschnick! A progress list of the required criteria for merging this PR into master will be added to the body of your pull request. There are additional pull request commands available for use with this pull request.

[openjdk]

@crschnick This change now passes all automated pre-integration checks.

ℹ️ This project also has non-automated pre-integration requirements. Please see the file CONTRIBUTING.md for details.

After integration, the commit message for the final commit will be:

8154847: Rendering is incorrect or not visible with StageStyle.UNIFIED on some graphics cards

You can use pull request commands such as /summary, /contributor and /issue to adjust it as needed.

At the time when this comment was updated there had been 3 new commits pushed to the master branch:

• c3abe59: Merge
• cb6b858: 8375466: Metal rendering pipeline crashes on virtualized OS
• 3c82487: 8373936: RichEditorDemoApp enhancements

Please see this link for an up-to-date comparison between the source branch of this pull request and the master branch.
As there are no conflicts, your changes will automatically be rebased on top of these commits when integrating. If you prefer to avoid this automatic rebasing, please check the documentation for the /integrate command for further details.

As you do not have Committer status in this project an existing Committer must agree to sponsor your change.

➡️ To flag this PR as ready for integration with the above commit message, type /integrate in a new comment. (Afterwards, your sponsor types /sponsor in a new comment to perform the integration).

[openjdk]

This backport pull request has now been updated with issue from the original commit.

[openjdk]

⚠️ @crschnick This change is now ready for you to apply for maintainer approval. This can be done directly in each associated issue or by using the /approval command.

[crschnick]

/approval

[openjdk]

@crschnick usage: /approval [<id>] (request|cancel) [<text>]

[mlbridge]

Webrevs

• 00: Full (1d0c86a1)

[kevinrushforth]

@crschnick As Skara notes, you forgot the "request" modifier for the "approval" command. Something like this is what you will need: /approval request REASON YOU THINK IT SHOULD BE BACKPORTED (and don't worry much about the reason...we already discussed it on the PR and I'll approve it once you make the request).

[crschnick]

/approval request This JBS issue has seen a lot of activity over the years, so there is probably demand for it

[openjdk]

@crschnick
8154847: The approval request has been created successfully.

[crschnick]

In general, how for can backporting go? I would argue this fix has even more relevance for older applications and JavaFX runtimes. If you are running older applications on older hardware, there is a higher change the application uses UNIFIED than now and also a higher chance that the bug occurs on older systems

[kevinrushforth]

Approved. Since this is a clean backport, it only needs Maintainer approval. Review is optional (and not needed in this case). Once the approval is recorded, you may integrate it.

/approve yes

[openjdk]

@kevinrushforth
8154847: The approval request has been approved.

[kevinrushforth]

In general, how for can backporting go? I would argue this fix has even more relevance for older applications and JavaFX runtimes. If you are running older applications on older hardware, there is a higher change the application uses UNIFIED than now and also a higher chance that the bug occurs on older systems

That would be up to the maintainer of each code line. Gluon maintains jfx25u and jfx17u, so @johanvos is the approver. Feel free to make the request and he will decide.

There is currently no maintainer for the the OpenJFX 11u or 8u code lines. The jfx11u repo has been archived and we never created a jfx8u GitHub repo (that code line had no maintainer when we moved from Mercurial to git).

[crschnick]

/integrate

[openjdk]

@crschnick
Your change (at version 1d0c86a) is now ready to be sponsored by a Committer.

[kevinrushforth]

@crschnick I completely missed that this was waiting for a sponsor. I'll do that now.

/sponsor

[openjdk]

Going to push as commit 89e4d11.
Since your change was applied there have been 7 commits pushed to the master branch:

• 06d7a81: Merge
• 874c595: 8378034: Add licenses for gcc 14.2.0
• 019249d: 8377393: RichTextArea: failed to export null color attribute value
• ... and 4 more: https://git.openjdk.org/jfx26u/compare/24749d1c22b6b2d0a5b05b568c61d776e15c0baf...master

Your commit was automatically rebased without conflicts.

[openjdk]

@kevinrushforth @crschnick Pushed as commit 89e4d11.

💡 You may see a message that your pull request was closed with unmerged commits. This can be safely ignored.