Good to see we could have back 32bits support in a near future. Thanks gentlemen
2012/2/22 David Holmes <david.hol...@oracle.com>: > On 22/02/2012 9:49 AM, Phil Race wrote: >> >> I was half suggesting that, half wondering. I suspect that most of the >> queries on the value >> of that flag are inside some "if <platform>" test so we may only need to >> make the OS X >> build path understand the combined setting for those cases, minimising >> the disruption. > > > Some of them are "generic" in hotspot (eg in the else of a !windows check or > a !zero check). Didn't check JDK side. > > David > > > >> -phil. >> >> On 2/21/2012 3:32 PM, Mike Swingler wrote: >>> >>> Would it be feasible to overload ARCH_DATA_MODEL to take a string like >>> "32+64", "32/64", or "Universal" (even though that's an ambiguous >>> misnomer)? >>> >>> On Feb 21, 2012, at 3:31 PM, Phil Race wrote: >>> >>>> 'ARCH_DATA_MODEL' has historically been used to select a build as 32 >>>> or 64 bit. >>>> So 'ARCH_DATA_MODEL=32' ought to be able to select a 32 bit only >>>> build without >>>> too many build changes. Making that support 32+64 as well may be >>>> appropriate for OS X builds. >>>> >>>> -phil. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On 2/21/2012 3:19 PM, Mike Swingler wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Awesome, thanks much James. >>>>> >>>>> Is there a pre-existing flag or naming convention for >>>>> architecture-related build flags? Obviously we want to align with >>>>> existing precedent, and get the HotSpot and JDK sides to use the >>>>> same flag. :-) >>>>> >>>>> On Feb 21, 2012, at 2:58 PM, James Melvin wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Yes. I can file a bug and look into this, Mike. >>>>>> >>>>>> - Jim >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On 2/21/12 5:55 PM, Mike Swingler wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Feb 21, 2012, at 2:45 PM, James Melvin wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> One caveat... >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> For the JVM, we've preserved 32/64-bit universal builds. >>>>>>>> Currently, the >>>>>>>> JVM universal build only includes 64-bit support. Additionally >>>>>>>> including >>>>>>>> 32-bit requires 3 Makefile uncomments. However, there may likely be >>>>>>>> additional work on the JDK side to fully support the same. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> That's good to know, but that should really be keyed off of a >>>>>>> build flag (which can default to 64-bit only). Should we file a CR >>>>>>> through the Oracle bug reporter to get the process started to >>>>>>> change this for HotSpot? >>>>> >>>>> Is there someone who can help restore the 32/64-bit build-ability >>>>> for the JDK side, or at least direct us as to where we can start >>>>> filing a CR? >>> >>> Curious, >>> Mike Swingler >>> Apple Inc. >>> >> >
