On 15/03/2014 7:11 AM, Alexander Smundak wrote:
Ping.
My position hasn't changed. I don't think this needs to be, or should
be, a distinct architecture.
I've added build-dev to cc list to see what our build experts think.
David
-----
On Wed, Mar 12, 2014 at 4:59 PM, Alexander Smundak <asmun...@google.com> wrote:
I was concerned by the term 'variant', which might suggest that the applications
built for PPC64 and PPC64LE are binary compatible. They are not.
On Wed, Mar 12, 2014 at 3:55 PM, David Holmes <david.hol...@oracle.com> wrote:
On 12/03/2014 9:19 AM, Alexander Smundak wrote:
On Tue, Mar 11, 2014 at 3:51 PM, Vladimir Kozlov
<vladimir.koz...@oracle.com> wrote:
It would only help if you could do cross compilation to have both build
variants at the same place. Currently you can only build le variant on
ppc64le machine and vice versa. That is why, I think, David asked if we
can
control what variant to build.
Just to clarify the situation a bit: ppc64le is not a variant of ppc64.
That is,
an application compiled for the little-endian PowerPC64 does not "just
run" on
the big-endian PowerPC64 (albeit OS can have such feature, similar to the
ability of the Linux running on x86_64 CPU to run 32-bit x86
applications).
So ppc64le is a different architecture from ppc64.
I disagree with that classification for "architecture" and it seems at odds
with the literature which describes the endian-ness selection as a "mode".
David
-----
I would like to see the changes based on Volker suggestion. We can
compare
them and decide which way to go.
Volker has the detailed suggestion here:
http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/ppc-aix-port-dev/2014-March/001790.html
and it involves additional Make variable and if statements in the
platform makefile
where they are not supposed to be present.
