On Mon, Sep 9, 2013 at 4:32 PM, Volker Simonis <volker.simo...@gmail.com>wrote:
> Hi Magnus, > > thanks again for the review. Please see my comments inline: > > > On Mon, Sep 9, 2013 at 12:23 PM, Magnus Ihse Bursie < > magnus.ihse.bur...@oracle.com> wrote: > >> Hi Volker, >> >> Some more comments inlined. >> >> OK, common/autoconf/build-aux/autoconf-config.guess was too old and >> didn't knew about AIX 7 so it returned the default AIX fallback which is >> 'rs6000-ibm-aix'. I have now fixed 'autoconf-config.guess' to know about >> AIX 7 (a one character change which is already in autoconf-2.69 so we won't >> have problems if you should ever update autoconf-config.guess). >> >> >> Hmm... While more elegant, the idea was that autoconf-config.guess should >> be a strict copy of the config.guess file from the autoconf package. The >> whole idea of wrapping it in a custom config.guess was to avoid "forking" >> the autoconf config.guess, with small changes (like this) that would be >> hard to track and might get lost if we update to a newer version from the >> upstream autoconf file. >> >> That being said, since we settled on autoconf 2.69, we really should >> update the file to config.guess from autoconf-2.69. I've started a test run >> on our internal test system with the config.guess from 2.69 to see if it >> breaks any existing platforms. If not, I suggest we do a fast integration >> of the new config.guess. >> >> Can you hold on with your changes until a new config.guess comes in? Even >> if you're just making a small change that will be reverted soon after, I >> think it would set a unfortunate precedent. >> > > That's OK for me. Actually my change still works without the changes in > "config.guess" on AIX 5.3. And it will automatically start working once we > get the new "config.guess". > > >> Ahrgh, all these proud compilers with their own ways of expressing the >>> same functionality. :( I assume that you are using the COMP_MODE_OPTION in >>> the jdk projct? I couldn't find any references to it in the Hotspot build >>> changes, and otherwise there seems to be no reason to export it in the >>> spec.gmk file. >>> >>> >> Yes, exactly. It is used in 'jdk/makefiles/GensrcX11Wrappers.gmk' >> (MEMORY_MODEL_FLAG="$(COMP_MODE_OPTION)$*"). >> >> Once again the X11 wrappers. We should really make an effort and get rid >> of them. :-/ >> >> >> I don't mind:) > >> I fully agree with the criticism on the name:) After we already have >> 'COMPILER_SUPPORTS_TARGET_BITS_FLAG' I've simply renamed it to >> 'COMPILER_TARGET_BITS_FLAG'. I think that's much more appropriate and if >> you don't like it we should ask the one who invented >> 'COMPILER_SUPPORTS_TARGET_BITS_FLAG' :) And I had to set >> 'COMPILER_TARGET_BITS_FLAG' a little earlier such that is availabel in >> PLATFORM_SET_COMPILER_TARGET_BITS_FLAGS. >> >> Sounds good! Nice aligning with the existing macro. >> >> However, you forgot to change the name in spec.gmk.in. (At least in the >> webrev you published.) >> > > Good catch! I didn't realize it because the build in the stage > repositories currently doesn’t reach the X11 wrappers. > I've changed it and moved it near the definition of > 'COMPILER_SUPPORTS_TARGET_BITS_FLAG' > > >> 2. After you pointed out that setting '-q64' as extra flags on the >> configure command line is not the way it is supposed to work I recalled >> that we also have this problem on older Linux/PPC64 boxes (e.g. SLES 10) >> where the default compiler produces 32-bit objects by default. To fix this >> problem as well, I've inserted a call to >> PLATFORM_SET_COMPILER_TARGET_BITS_FLAGS followed by a second call to >> AC_CHECK_SIZEOF([int *], [1111]) in the case where we would otherwise have >> bailed out because the "TESTED_TARGET_CPU_BITS" differs from the actual >> "OPENJDK_TARGET_CPU_BITS". I think this change should not affect any >> existing platforms because it will only be triggered where we woould have >> bailed out with an error anyway. >> >> Also, the workaround for autoconf bug >> http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/autoconf/2010-07/msg00004.html in >> AC_CHECK_SIZEOF isn't needed any more now that we require at least >> autoconf-2.69 because the problem was fixed in 2.67. And if I looked at it >> more carefully I must say that I don't understand the workaround at all. In >> my opinion, the test "x$SIZEOF_INT_P" != "x$ac_cv_sizeof_int_p" will always >> fail, because the AC_CHECK_SIZEOF macro only writes a define for >> SIZEOF_INT_P into "confdefs.h" (as can be seen in generated-configure.h) >> but it never defines it in the shell. And defining SIZEOF_INT_P in the >> configure shell script wouldn't help if the define written by the >> AC_CHECK_SIZEOF macro was wrong (as described in the bug). So Ithink the >> best is to remove the workaround and use "ac_cv_sizeof_int_p" in the places >> where we used AC_CHECK_SIZEOF before. >> >> >> Good to get rid of the old workaround. I agree, it looks kind of weird. I >> think I might have been behind some of the weirdness; I think I interpreted >> the autoconf documentation as if it should assign a variable SIZEOF_INT_P >> in the configure script, and that the $ac_* variables were internal >> variables that should not be directly accessed. In the current >> documentation, at least, the $ac_cv_sizeof* macro is officially mentioned >> so it should be safe to use. >> >> However, your second relies on some internal autoconf magic, by unsetting >> variables and defines. We've tried to avoid that, but at times there were >> no choice. Since we're about to fail anyway, and the code is more in place >> for future, strange platforms, it's probably no harm. >> >> > Exactly. > > Is it OK if I push it now to > http://hg.openjdk.java.net/ppc-aix-port/ppc-aix-port/stage or is there > anything you want to test first? > Vladimir will push the changes because he also needs to re-generate the closed config files (thanks Vladimir). Here's the final webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~simonis/webrevs/8024265.v3 @Vladimir: I used autoconf 2.69 to create the webrev, so if you recreate the config files the diff to 'common/autoconf/generated-configure.sh' should be only the time-stamp field. Regards, Volker > >> /Magnus >> > >
