Andrey Petushkov <andrey.petush...@gmail.com> 于2018年8月29日周三 下午10:47写道： > > Dear Ao, > > On 29 Aug 2018, at 17:05, Ao Qi <a...@loongson.cn> wrote: > > Andrey Petushkov <andrey.petush...@gmail.com> 于2018年8月28日周二 下午10:37写道： > > > > On 28 Aug 2018, at 09:33, Magnus Ihse Bursie <magnus.ihse.bur...@oracle.com> > wrote: > > > > I have one question about the name. Our port is for MIPS64, and I know > some companies are doing MIPS32 port. I am not sure whether they will > upstream their work. If yes, it is not known yet that whether the code > is merged into "mips-port/jdk11" (or jdk8, or ...) or into different > repositories. So which name (mips-port or mips64-port) are more > suitable for the current situation? > > Unless there's a requirement that repo names must match the project > names, it sounds like mips64-port is more logical. Such matching seem to > be the general rule, but otoh I find repos that does not fit project > names either, so maybe it's a flexible rule. > > Even if no mips32 port ever materializes, I think this is a good choice > of name. If your port is only supporting mips64 and you have no > intention of doing anything different, then it's better to be explicit. > That way everyone's expectations on the port is at the right level. > > Currently we mainly focus on MIPS64. > > However, if some one is doing MIPS32 port, we are willing to help and > contribute:) > > Seeing that no-one has been interested in mips32 for a long time, that does > not seem likely. I'd recommend using mips64. A future mips-32 port will > probably need to start over in a new repo, from a different level. > > > Hi guys, > > Indeed yes, Azul Systems develops mips32 port based on Loongson mips64 code. > Naturally our supported java version is also 8u. And yes, we’d like to as > well contribute our code along with mips64 code from Loongson. Of more > precisely, on top, since we have chosen the #ifdef way. So that requires > Loongson to be the first to put the code into the repos > > > Hi Andrey Petushkov, > > Glad to hear that! Could you tell what is the current status of your > mips32 port? > > The port is almost complete for template interpreter and c2. We’re in > bug-fixing phase now > We did not yet started c1. specifically in order to avoid clash with your > implementation during the merge >
It's great! We are doing C1 now. It's in bug-fixing phase. If you are not in a hurry, you can wait for us. > I have tried to "put the code into the repos" for some time. It is > really a hard work and may take a long time. If Azul and Loongson want > to use the same repo, I think we should start early. I am afraid it > would be hard work to put our codes into one repo after we develop our > own repos for years. I cannot say when our code can be accepted by > upstream, but I think It won't happen soon. Before that, a repo > somewhere outside OpenJDK may be a choice. > > Soon we’ll be running our own code clearance tests so the results might be be > helpful for you as well, since it should fix (or prove there are no) some of > the concerns OpenJDK government is imposing on the contributions. We’ll let > you know the results once they are ready > Thanks! Looking forward that results and the experience from Azul. > We did not consider contributing into external repos, although it might make > sense. Please let us discuss that internally first > > Regards, > Andrey > > > Regards, > Andrey > > > > /Magnus > >
