Personally I like the idea of a default with "Universal" binaries, and the options for 32/64 for the reasons you mentioned. I think it is important to be inclusive vs. exclusive.
John Sent from my iPhone On Feb 27, 2012, at 6:09 PM, Artem Ananiev <artem.anan...@oracle.com> wrote: > > Alternatively, we can completely ignore ARCH_DATA_MODEL on Mac and always > build universal binaries. As far as I remember, we did exactly this when Mac > OS X Port was a standalone OpenJDK project. Of course, in this case we'll > lose an ability to build 32-bit and 64-bit only builds, which may be useful > in cases when JDK/JRE size is important. > > Thanks, > > Artem > > On 2/22/2012 1:51 AM, Michael McMahon wrote: >> Jim, >> >> If the Hotspot openjdk build is changed to produce both 32/64 bit binaries >> then the JDK build can be changed to do the same. The only reason why >> 32 bit support was removed in the JDK libs was because it wasn't >> available in Hotspot >> at the time. This seemed to align with Oracle's (and Apple's) >> views/plans at the time also. >> >> However, it's clear there is a demand for at least the Openjdk source to >> be buildable for >> 32/64 bit. How about if ARCH_DATA_MODEL=universal then we build both on >> Mac OS X? >> >> We can do this in jdk7u-dev (post 7u4) and in jdk8. I don't see any need >> to get it into >> 7u4 because Oracle won't be supporting it in our JDK anyway. >> >> - Michael >> >> On 21/02/12 22:45, 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. >>> >>> - Jim >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On 2/21/12 5:21 PM, Mike Swingler wrote: >>>> On Feb 21, 2012, at 12:18 AM, Henri Gomez wrote: >>>> >>>>> Another question for you guys about OSX. >>>>> >>>>> 32 bits support as been removed some weeks ago without further notice >>>>> on OSX version. >>>>> >>>>> * Why such decision ? >>>>> >>>>> * How could we bring back 32 bits support, especially -d32 support ? >>>>> >>>>> * Where is the correct location to enter a bug report on this >>>>> (bugreport.sun.com ?) >>>> >>>> Dalibor& Mark, >>>> >>>> Henri raises some good points here, since the ability to build >>>> OpenJDK 32/64 Universal was lost in the merge from the macosx-port >>>> repository to the jdk7u-osx repository with no public discussion. >>>> >>>> I thought the ability to build 32/64 Universal was preserved, and >>>> Oracle was simply going to support 64-bit only in it's proprietary >>>> builds. >>>> >>>> What is the best path to fixing this? >>>> >>>> Mike Swingler >>>> Apple Inc. >>>> >>
