On Mon, Mar 26, 2018 at 3:19 AM, David Holmes <david.hol...@oracle.com> wrote:
> 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 > > This sounds reasonable. > 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 >> >> Thanks, Thomas
