On 26/03/2018 11:06 AM, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
On 03/26/2018 08:08 AM, David Holmes wrote:
Everytime I see these zero-only platform definitions it makes we think we really
should have these isolated into a zero-specific file. At the moment this can
paint a false picture that all these platforms have full OpenJDK ports
available.
Is that really the case though? If someone is reading the platform.m4 file, they
might think that but simply trying to build the server variant for ia64 would
fail very quickly anyway and people would realize it's not supported.
It's not so much that (though there have been cases!) but people just
looking in that file can't tell a full platform from a zero-only
platform. The general rule is that OpenJDK doesn't accept platform
specific patches unless there is a fully supported port of that
platform. But zero is the exception to that rule. So I just think, as a
separate RFE, it would be good to split these out into platforms-zero.m4
which can then be included in platforms.m4
In the end, I think the extended portability OpenJDK highly outweighs your
reservations above. Someone who doesn't understand the difference between Zero
and the official ports, is also unlikely to try building OpenJDK from source
themselves.
I also wonder if the values here can be reliably obtained via uname/sysconf
or some such utility so that we don't have to list every single platform
individually?
I think autoconf normally has support for this, yes. It's rather unusual
having to add targets manually. But you will need the mapping to VAR_CPU,
for example. I will have a look at it anyway.
For the time being, it would be nice if I can get this and a second follow-up
change for ia64 merged so downstream (currently Debian and Gentoo for ia64)
doesn't have to carry any additional patches anymore.
I don't have a concern with this going in as-is for now. But wait for
Magnus or Erik to give the okay.
Thanks,
David
Thanks,
Adrian
