On 04/04/2017 10:12 AM, mark.reinh...@oracle.com wrote:
2017/4/4 1:04:22 -0700, magnus.ihse.bur...@oracle.com:
On 2017-04-03 23:50, Mandy Chung wrote:
...
JDK 8 JDK 9
----- -----
OS_NAME Linux linux
SunOS solaris
Darwin macos
Windows windows
OS_ARCH i386,x86 x86
i586,amd64,x86_64 amd64
sparcv9 sparcv9
arm arm32
aarch64 arm64
If we are making changes to the original proposal from JDK-8175819, then
I just want to add my few cents:
Why change from the well-established "aarch64" to the virtually unused
"arm64"? As far as I know, using the name "arm64" for the aarch64
platform is something that has only been done in the (recently opened)
closed Oracle port. This change, however, proposes to change the value
in the release file even for the open aarch64 port, which has always
been known by that name.
The trouble here is that "arm64" and "aarch64" are effectively synonyms
for the ISA, but in the JDK we've wound up using them as the names of
two different ports.
A JMOD file built for the 64-bit ARM architecture will (one hopes) run
equally well on either port. Which name should we use in JMOD files,
"arm64" or "aarch64"? My sense is that "arm64" is more immediately
understood by developers at large even if "aarch64" is more correct
in the eyes of ARM Holdings plc, but I could be wrong.
For what it's worth, the Linux distros aren't consistent: Debian-based
distros use "arm64", while Red Hat / Fedora seem to prefer "aarch64".
If you use "arm64" instead of "aarch64" then shouldn't you use "sparc64"
instead of "sparcv9"? Same logic AFAICT.
--
- DML
