Note that my little patch is in addition to everything that Tim Bell has in his patch to allow building with VS2012 Express, and I haven't tested this yet with VS2010 Express, but I will shortly.
And the point is exactly to allow someone outside Oracle to download OpenJDK and to build on Windows. David On 2013-05-24, at 6:06 AM, Erik Joelsson <erik.joels...@oracle.com> wrote: > On 2013-05-24 11:41, Anthony Petrov wrote: >> [ adding 2d-dev@ ] >> >> On 05/24/2013 11:23 AM, Erik Joelsson wrote: >>> On 2013-05-23 20:10, David Chase wrote: >>>> One change to add (a by-hand "diff") to >>>> common/autoconf/toolchain_windows.m4 : >>>> >>>> AC_MSG_CHECKING([for DirectX SDK lib dir]) >>>> if test "x$with_dxsdk_lib" != x; then >>>> DXSDK_LIB_PATH="$with_dxsdk_lib" >>>> elif test "x$OPENJDK_TARGET_CPU" = "xx86_64"; then >>>> DXSDK_LIB_PATH="$dxsdk_path/Lib/x64" >>>> + elif test -d "$dxsdk_path/Lib/x86"; then >>>> + DXSDK_LIB_PATH="$dxsdk_path/Lib/x86" >>>> else >>>> DXSDK_LIB_PATH="$dxsdk_path/Lib" >>>> fi >>>> >>>> This allows 32-bit configure with DirectX SDK 2010. >>>> This assumes that DXSDK 2004 lacks any subdirectory Lib/x86; I haven't >>>> seen it yet. >>>> >>> Yes, newer directx sdks have that subdir while the only one we support >>> doesn't. That's why I didn't add that check. The 2d team is quite >>> adamant about that being the only working directx sdk and any talk about >>> changing it should be with them, not the build team. >> >> We build OracleJDK using DXSDK 2004. Building with a newer DXSDK may (in >> theory) cause some differences in rendering graphics. Note that in practice >> I don't recall if anyone has ever seen any actual differences. However, when >> fixing e.g. 2D bugs, it is important that developers use the proper version >> of DXSDK for their developer builds to make sure they reproduce the actual >> issue. In all other cases the version of DXSDK doesn't really matter. >> >> I don't see how this translates to DXSDK 2004 "being the only working >> directx sdk". I believe that the changes proposed by David are reasonable >> and should be implemented to allow the OpenJDK community build with any >> version of DXSDK. >> >> >>> If we want to change directx sdk, we should first consider removing the >>> dependency completely since technically, everything that's needed is >>> installed with visual studio and/or the normal windows sdk. >> >> I agree, this is a good idea. And this is exactly something that the 2D team >> should decide. However, I believe that the above patch could be applied to >> OpenJDK as an interim solution before the decision is made. >>> > I agree with the patch too. Just gave the history to why it wasn't added > already. > > /Erik
