Re: RFR: JDK-8282532: Add option to explicitly set build platform and remove support for legacy cross compilation flags [v4]

ld and target compilers >> instead. This patch adds the ability to explicitly set the build platform >> through a new option, which can be especially helpful for when autodetection >> fails and devkits cannot be relied on, and also for simpler cross >> compilation cases (Like the

Re: RFR: JDK-8282532: Add option to explicitly set build platform and remove support for legacy cross compilation flags [v4]

tly set the build platform > through a new option, which can be especially helpful for when autodetection > fails and devkits cannot be relied on, and also for simpler cross compilation > cases (Like the one described in building.md) > > This also removes support for the legacy

Re: RFR: JDK-8282532: Add option to explicitly set build platform and remove support for legacy cross compilation flags [v3]

tly set the build platform > through a new option, which can be especially helpful for when autodetection > fails and devkits cannot be relied on, and also for simpler cross compilation > cases (Like the one described in building.md) > > This also removes support for the legacy

Re: RFR: JDK-8282532: Add option to explicitly set build platform and remove support for legacy cross compilation flags [v2]

tly set the build platform > through a new option, which can be especially helpful for when autodetection > fails and devkits cannot be relied on, and also for simpler cross compilation > cases (Like the one described in building.md) > > This also removes support for the legacy

Re: RFR: JDK-8282532: Add option to explicitly set build platform and remove support for legacy cross compilation flags

rget compilers > instead. This patch adds the ability to explicitly set the build platform > through a new option, which can be especially helpful for when autodetection > fails and devkits cannot be relied on, and also for simpler cross compilation > cases (Like the one described in b

Re: RFR: JDK-8282532: Add option to explicitly set build platform and remove support for legacy cross compilation flags

rget compilers > instead. This patch adds the ability to explicitly set the build platform > through a new option, which can be especially helpful for when autodetection > fails and devkits cannot be relied on, and also for simpler cross compilation > cases (Like the one described in b

Re: RFR: JDK-8282532: Add option to explicitly set build platform and remove support for legacy cross compilation flags

On Wed, 2 Mar 2022 08:33:58 GMT, TheShermanTanker wrote: > > > This also removes support for the legacy cross compilation flags as well. > > > > > > Hi, > > without reading through building.md and your patch, which legacy flags are > > would

Re: RFR: JDK-8282532: Add option to explicitly set build platform and remove support for legacy cross compilation flags

On Wed, 2 Mar 2022 08:27:19 GMT, Thomas Stuefe wrote: > > This also removes support for the legacy cross compilation flags as well. > > Hi, > > without reading through building.md and your patch, which legacy flags are > would be removed by this? > > Thanks, Tho

Re: RFR: JDK-8282532: Add option to explicitly set build platform and remove support for legacy cross compilation flags

On Wed, 2 Mar 2022 08:11:51 GMT, TheShermanTanker wrote: >This also removes support for the legacy cross compilation flags as well. Hi, without reading through building.md and your patch, which legacy flags are would be removed by this? Thanks, Thomas Oh, and please describe whatever you

RFR: JDK-8282532 Add option to explicitly set build platform and remove support for legacy cross compilation flags

build platform through a new option, which can be especially helpful for when autodetection fails and devkits cannot be relied on, and also for simpler cross compilation cases (Like the one described in building.md) This also removes support for the legacy cross compilation flags as well. WIP: Transl

Re: RFR: 8265343: Update Debian-based cross-compilation recipes

On Fri, 16 Apr 2021 11:57:32 GMT, Aleksey Shipilev wrote: > After [JDK-8257913](https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8257913), we do > not need to set a whole lot of options for cross-compiled builds. Docs should > be updated to reflect that fact. Also put in more configurations that are >

Integrated: 8265343: Update Debian-based cross-compilation recipes

lev URL: https://git.openjdk.java.net/jdk/commit/7879adbe Stats: 132 lines in 2 files changed: 88 ins; 17 del; 27 mod 8265343: Update Debian-based cross-compilation recipes Reviewed-by: erikj - PR: https://git.openjdk.java.net/jdk/pull/3545

Re: RFR: 8265343: Update Debian-based cross-compilation recipes

On Sun, 18 Apr 2021 17:33:56 GMT, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote: >> After [JDK-8257913](https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8257913), we do >> not need to set a whole lot of options for cross-compiled builds. Docs >> should be updated to reflect that fact. Also put in more configuration

Re: RFR: 8265343: Update Debian-based cross-compilation recipes

On Sun, 18 Apr 2021 17:33:56 GMT, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote: >> After [JDK-8257913](https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8257913), we do >> not need to set a whole lot of options for cross-compiled builds. Docs >> should be updated to reflect that fact. Also put in more configuration

Re: RFR: 8265343: Update Debian-based cross-compilation recipes

On Fri, 16 Apr 2021 11:57:32 GMT, Aleksey Shipilev wrote: > After [JDK-8257913](https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8257913), we do > not need to set a whole lot of options for cross-compiled builds. Docs should > be updated to reflect that fact. Also put in more configurations that are >

Re: RFR: 8265343: Update Debian-based cross-compilation recipes

On Fri, 16 Apr 2021 11:57:32 GMT, Aleksey Shipilev wrote: > After [JDK-8257913](https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8257913), we do > not need to set a whole lot of options for cross-compiled builds. Docs should > be updated to reflect that fact. Also put in more configurations that are >

RFR: 8265343: Update Debian-based cross-compilation recipes

[builds.shipilev.net](https://builds.shipilev.net/openjdk-jdk/). Maybe @glaubitz wants to chime in here too :) - Commit messages: - 8265343: Update Debian-based cross-compilation recipes Changes: https://git.openjdk.java.net/jdk/pull/3545/files Webrev: https://webrevs.openjdk.java.net/?repo

Integrated: 8264650: Cross-compilation to macos/aarch64

On Fri, 2 Apr 2021 13:28:31 GMT, Anton Kozlov wrote: > Please review adding necessary flags for cross-compilation on macos/x86 > targeting macos/aarch64. > > All CFLAGS, CXXFLAGS, LDFLAGS need target CPU flag `-arch arm64`. > This patch adds the flag along e.g `-m64`. > &

Re: RFR: 8264650: Cross-compilation to macos/aarch64 [v2]

On Fri, 2 Apr 2021 19:18:58 GMT, Anton Kozlov wrote: >> Please review adding necessary flags for cross-compilation on macos/x86 >> targeting macos/aarch64. >> >> All CFLAGS, CXXFLAGS, LDFLAGS need target CPU flag `-arch arm64`. >> This patch adds the flag a

Re: RFR: 8264650: Cross-compilation to macos/aarch64 [v2]

On Fri, 2 Apr 2021 16:23:05 GMT, Erik Joelsson wrote: >> make/autoconf/flags.m4 line 269: >> >>> 267: >>> 268: if test "x$OPENJDK_TARGET_OS" = xmacosx && >>> 269: test "x$OPENJDK_TARGET_CPU" = xaarch64; then >>

Re: RFR: 8264650: Cross-compilation to macos/aarch64 [v2]

> Please review adding necessary flags for cross-compilation on macos/x86 > targeting macos/aarch64. > > All CFLAGS, CXXFLAGS, LDFLAGS need target CPU flag `-arch arm64`. > This patch adds the flag along e.g `-m64`. > > Tested: > * cross-compilation > * macos/x86

Re: RFR: 8264650: Cross-compilation to macos/aarch64

On Fri, 2 Apr 2021 13:28:31 GMT, Anton Kozlov wrote: > Please review adding necessary flags for cross-compilation on macos/x86 > targeting macos/aarch64. > > All CFLAGS, CXXFLAGS, LDFLAGS need target CPU flag `-arch arm64`. > This patch adds the flag along e.g `-m64`. > &

Re: RFR: 8264650: Cross-compilation to macos/aarch64

On Fri, 2 Apr 2021 16:21:52 GMT, Erik Joelsson wrote: >> Please review adding necessary flags for cross-compilation on macos/x86 >> targeting macos/aarch64. >> >> All CFLAGS, CXXFLAGS, LDFLAGS need target CPU flag `-arch arm64`. >> This patch adds the flag a

RFR: 8264650: Cross-compilation to macos/aarch64

Please review adding necessary flags for cross-compilation on macos/x86 targeting macos/aarch64. All CFLAGS, CXXFLAGS, LDFLAGS need target CPU flag `-arch arm64`. This patch adds the flag along e.g `-m64`. Tested: * cross-compilation on macos/x86 to macos/aarch64: configure --openjdk-target

Re: RFR: 8257913: Add more known library locations to simplify Linux cross-compilation [v3]

On Mon, 8 Mar 2021 23:29:25 GMT, Magnus Ihse Bursie wrote: >> I thought we need to declare these as `AC_SUBST` as we define the variables >> outside this file? I can revert these additions if you think these are >> incorrect. > > No, they are only needed to be able to populate the @FOO@ tags in

Re: RFR: 8257913: Add more known library locations to simplify Linux cross-compilation [v3]

On Mon, 8 Mar 2021 16:14:21 GMT, Aleksey Shipilev wrote: >> make/autoconf/platform.m4 line 364: >> >>> 362: AC_SUBST(OPENJDK_TARGET_CPU_AUTOCONF) >>> 363: AC_SUBST(OPENJDK_TARGET_LIBC) >>> 364: AC_SUBST(OPENJDK_TARGET_ABI) >> >> I realize this has already been integrated, but I don't full

Re: RFR: 8257913: Add more known library locations to simplify Linux cross-compilation [v3]

On Mon, 8 Mar 2021 16:11:20 GMT, Magnus Ihse Bursie wrote: >> Aleksey Shipilev has updated the pull request incrementally with one >> additional commit since the last revision: >> >> Replace with linux with TARGET_OS > > make/autoconf/platform.m4 line 364: > >> 362: AC_SUBST(OPENJDK_TARGET

Re: RFR: 8257913: Add more known library locations to simplify Linux cross-compilation [v3]

On Fri, 5 Mar 2021 16:03:18 GMT, Aleksey Shipilev wrote: >> Current cross-compilation configurations require adding the whole lot of >> configure options to make it find the dependencies: freetype and X11 libs >> are the only problematic dependencies. We should be able t

Integrated: 8257913: Add more known library locations to simplify Linux cross-compilation

On Thu, 4 Mar 2021 18:58:03 GMT, Aleksey Shipilev wrote: > Current cross-compilation configurations require adding the whole lot of > configure options to make it find the dependencies: freetype and X11 libs are > the only problematic dependencies. We should be able to specify

Re: RFR: 8257913: Add more known library locations to simplify Linux cross-compilation [v3]

On Fri, 5 Mar 2021 16:03:18 GMT, Aleksey Shipilev wrote: >> Current cross-compilation configurations require adding the whole lot of >> configure options to make it find the dependencies: freetype and X11 libs >> are the only problematic dependencies. We should be able t

Re: RFR: 8257913: Add more known library locations to simplify Linux cross-compilation [v3]

On Fri, 5 Mar 2021 14:06:05 GMT, Erik Joelsson wrote: >> What I can do is parse the ABI from the original string, and then >> reconstruct the triplet as `$OPENJDK_TARGET_CPU-linux-$OPENJDK_TARGET_ABI`. >> See the update. > > This is certainly much better. Would it make sense to replace "linux"

Re: RFR: 8257913: Add more known library locations to simplify Linux cross-compilation [v3]

> Current cross-compilation configurations require adding the whole lot of > configure options to make it find the dependencies: freetype and X11 libs are > the only problematic dependencies. We should be able to specify just the > `--with-sysroot`, and get everything else

Re: RFR: 8257913: Add more known library locations to simplify Linux cross-compilation [v3]

On Fri, 5 Mar 2021 07:35:44 GMT, Aleksey Shipilev wrote: >> Yes, original `openjdk-target` would be enough. Unfortunately, >> `AUTOCONF_NAME` seems to be the quadruplet generated from original >> `--openjdk-target`. For example, for ARM we supply >> `--openjdk-target=arm-linux-gnueabihf`, but

Re: RFR: 8257913: Add more known library locations to simplify Linux cross-compilation [v2]

> Current cross-compilation configurations require adding the whole lot of > configure options to make it find the dependencies: freetype and X11 libs are > the only problematic dependencies. We should be able to specify just the > `--with-sysroot`, and get everything else

Re: RFR: 8257913: Add more known library locations to simplify Linux cross-compilation [v2]

On Fri, 5 Mar 2021 07:06:24 GMT, Aleksey Shipilev wrote: >> I think that value should be accessible from OPENJDK_TARGET_AUTOCONF_NAME. > > Yes, original `openjdk-target` would be enough. Unfortunately, > `AUTOCONF_NAME` seems to be the quadruplet generated from original > `--openjdk-target`. Fo

Re: RFR: 8257913: Add more known library locations to simplify Linux cross-compilation

On Thu, 4 Mar 2021 19:34:16 GMT, Erik Joelsson wrote: >> make/autoconf/lib-freetype.m4 line 201: >> >>> 199: if test "x$FOUND_FREETYPE" != "xyes" ; then >>> 200: LIB_CHECK_POTENTIAL_FREETYPE([$FREETYPE_BASE_DIR/include], >>> 201: >>> [$FREETYPE_BASE_DIR/lib/$OPEN

Re: RFR: 8257913: Add more known library locations to simplify Linux cross-compilation

On Thu, 4 Mar 2021 19:30:27 GMT, Erik Joelsson wrote: >> Current cross-compilation configurations require adding the whole lot of >> configure options to make it find the dependencies: freetype and X11 libs >> are the only problematic dependencies. We should be able t

Re: RFR: 8257913: Add more known library locations to simplify Linux cross-compilation

On Thu, 4 Mar 2021 18:58:03 GMT, Aleksey Shipilev wrote: > Current cross-compilation configurations require adding the whole lot of > configure options to make it find the dependencies: freetype and X11 libs are > the only problematic dependencies. We should be able to specify

RFR: 8257913: Add more known library locations to simplify Linux cross-compilation

Current cross-compilation configurations require adding the whole lot of configure options to make it find the dependencies: freetype and X11 libs are the only problematic dependencies. We should be able to specify just the `--with-sysroot`, and get everything else autodetected. After this

Re: Cross-compilation of OpenJDK Zero with clang

Hello Andy, Sorry for the late reply, but a lot of us have been on holiday. I recommend starting with the main documentation in the source tree at doc/building.md. I have no personal experience using Clang for cross compilation, but I would imagine it would function similar enough to GCC. To

Cross-compilation of OpenJDK Zero with clang

Hi, I am in the process of porting OpenJDK to a new architecture, at the current moment in time we only have clang/LLVM cross compilation tools, and GCC/binutils is still a year or so away. Could anyone offer any pointers to documentation/hints, and/or outline what is necessary to get cross

Integrated: 8256182: Update qemu-debootstrap cross-compilation recipe

nes in 2 files changed: 25 ins; 0 del; 27 mod 8256182: Update qemu-debootstrap cross-compilation recipe Reviewed-by: ihse - PR: https://git.openjdk.java.net/jdk/pull/1160

Re: RFR: 8256182: Update qemu-debootstrap cross-compilation recipe [v3]

On Wed, 11 Nov 2020 12:23:48 GMT, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote: >> Not really: `buster` is the `SUITE`, it is the argument on its own. > > Correct, ```buster``` is the suite (= Debian release). > > You might want to use ```stable``` instead of ```buster```, then you don't > need to adjust t

Re: RFR: 8256182: Update qemu-debootstrap cross-compilation recipe [v3]

On Wed, 11 Nov 2020 12:04:11 GMT, Aleksey Shipilev wrote: >> Update the docs with the (f)actual recipe used in JDK-8256127. > > Aleksey Shipilev has updated the pull request incrementally with one > additional commit since the last revision: > > Properly indent the code blocks Looks good now

Re: RFR: 8256182: Update qemu-debootstrap cross-compilation recipe [v3]

On Wed, 11 Nov 2020 11:53:39 GMT, Aleksey Shipilev wrote: >> doc/building.md line 1100: >> >>> 1098: >>> --include=fakeroot,symlinks,build-essential,libx11-dev,libxext-dev,libxrender-dev,libxrandr-dev,libxtst-dev,libxt-dev,libcups2-dev,libfontconfig1-dev,libasound2-dev,libfreetype6-dev,libpng

Re: RFR: 8256182: Update qemu-debootstrap cross-compilation recipe [v3]

> Update the docs with the (f)actual recipe used in JDK-8256127. Aleksey Shipilev has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional commit since the last revision: Properly indent the code blocks - Changes: - all: https://git.openjdk.java.net/jdk/pull/1160/files

Re: RFR: 8256182: Update qemu-debootstrap cross-compilation recipe [v3]

On Wed, 11 Nov 2020 11:56:57 GMT, Aleksey Shipilev wrote: >> Right! Fixed that. > > Well, and `make update-build-docs` made no changes after this, so I guess > pandoc did not care. Maybe it is missing indents... Yes, indents were incorrect. Fixed, and now generated html looks fine. ---

Re: RFR: 8256182: Update qemu-debootstrap cross-compilation recipe [v2]

On Wed, 11 Nov 2020 11:54:27 GMT, Aleksey Shipilev wrote: >> doc/building.md line 1107: >> >>> 1105: * Make sure the symlinks inside the newly created chroot point to >>> proper locations: >>> 1106: >>> 1107: ``` >> >> I think it is important that you do not have an empty line between the

Re: RFR: 8256182: Update qemu-debootstrap cross-compilation recipe [v2]

> Update the docs with the (f)actual recipe used in JDK-8256127. Aleksey Shipilev has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional commit since the last revision: Remove newline before code block - Changes: - all: https://git.openjdk.java.net/jdk/pull/1160/files

Re: RFR: 8256182: Update qemu-debootstrap cross-compilation recipe [v2]

On Wed, 11 Nov 2020 11:39:56 GMT, Magnus Ihse Bursie wrote: >> Aleksey Shipilev has updated the pull request incrementally with one >> additional commit since the last revision: >> >> Remove newline before code block > > doc/building.md line 1100: > >> 1098: >> --include=fakeroot,symlinks

Re: RFR: 8256182: Update qemu-debootstrap cross-compilation recipe

On Wed, 11 Nov 2020 09:02:27 GMT, Aleksey Shipilev wrote: > Update the docs with the (f)actual recipe used in JDK-8256127. Thanks for keeping the documentation up to date! I have no objection to the actual content, just these minor formatting comments. doc/building.md line 1100: > 1098: >

RFR: 8256182: Update qemu-debootstrap cross-compilation recipe

Update the docs with the (f)actual recipe used in JDK-8256127. - Commit messages: - 8256182: Update qemu-debootstrap cross-compilation recipe Changes: https://git.openjdk.java.net/jdk/pull/1160/files Webrev: https://webrevs.openjdk.java.net/?repo=jdk&pr=1160&range=00

Re: [ping] [11u] RFR 8234535: Cross compilation fails due to missing CFLAGS for the BUILD_CC

Thank you for the quick review, Severin. -- Christoph On 2020-08-26 12:10, Severin Gehwolf wrote: On Wed, 2020-08-26 at 11:29 +0200, Christoph Göttschkes wrote: Webrev: https://cr.openjdk.java.net/~cgo/8234535/webrev-11u.00/ This looks fine to me. Thanks, Severin

Re: [ping] [11u] RFR 8234535: Cross compilation fails due to missing CFLAGS for the BUILD_CC

On Wed, 2020-08-26 at 11:29 +0200, Christoph Göttschkes wrote: > > Webrev: https://cr.openjdk.java.net/~cgo/8234535/webrev-11u.00/ This looks fine to me. Thanks, Severin

[ping] [11u] RFR 8234535: Cross compilation fails due to missing CFLAGS for the BUILD_CC

Hi, the webrev below still applies cleanly to jdk11u-dev. Could someone please review this downport? Thanks, Christoph On 2020-07-20 15:48, Christoph Göttschkes wrote: Hi, please review this downport of JDK-8234535 to jdk11u-dev. The changeset does not apply cleanly because of unrelated di

Re: suggesting fix: cross-compilation is requiring write permissions to bootstrap jdk

the exploded image jdk we just built. When cross compiling, the default behavior is to just also build enough of the native parts of the JDK for the build platform and use that. You may also supply a BUILD_JDK when configuring a cross compilation build. When doing so you must ensure that it&#x

Re: suggesting fix: cross-compilation is requiring write permissions to bootstrap jdk

seeing this issue). For a native build, the BUILD_JDK is simply the exploded image jdk we just built. When cross compiling, the default behavior is to just also build enough of the native parts of the JDK for the build platform and use that. You may also supply a BUILD_JDK when configuring a cross comp

Re: suggesting fix: cross-compilation is requiring write permissions to bootstrap jdk

e native parts of the JDK for the build platform and use that. You may also supply a BUILD_JDK when configuring a cross compilation build. When doing so you must ensure that it's built from the exact same sources as the JDK you are cross compiling, otherwise results are unpredictable. In

Re: suggesting fix: cross-compilation is requiring write permissions to bootstrap jdk

compiling, the default behavior is to just also build enough of the native parts of the JDK for the build platform and use that. You may also supply a BUILD_JDK when configuring a cross compilation build. When doing so you must ensure that it's built from the exact same sources as the JDK

Re: suggesting fix: cross-compilation is requiring write permissions to bootstrap jdk

ive build, the BUILD_JDK is simply the exploded image jdk we just built. When cross compiling, the default behavior is to just also build enough of the native parts of the JDK for the build platform and use that. You may also supply a BUILD_JDK when configuring a cross compilation build. When d

Re: suggesting fix: cross-compilation is requiring write permissions to bootstrap jdk

is where you are seeing this issue). For a native build, the BUILD_JDK is simply the exploded image jdk we just built. When cross compiling, the default behavior is to just also build enough of the native parts of the JDK for the build platform and use that. You may also supply a BUILD

Re: suggesting fix: cross-compilation is requiring write permissions to bootstrap jdk

-compiling, and have an external build-jdk. And we want to generate link opt data Claes, is this really OK for cross-compilation? I did not think so, but we have the following explicitly in Main.gmk:   # If an external buildjdk has been provided, we skip generating an   # interim-image an

Re: suggesting fix: cross-compilation is requiring write permissions to bootstrap jdk

use that. You may also supply a BUILD_JDK when configuring a cross compilation build. When doing so you must ensure that it's built from the exact same sources as the JDK you are cross compiling, otherwise results are unpredictable. In our internal build setups, we don't use the exte

Re: suggesting fix: cross-compilation is requiring write permissions to bootstrap jdk

e want to generate link opt data Claes, is this really OK for cross-compilation? I did not think so, but we have the following explicitly in Main.gmk:   # If an external buildjdk has been provided, we skip generating an   # interim-image and just use the external buildjdk for

Re: suggesting fix: cross-compilation is requiring write permissions to bootstrap jdk

On 2020-05-26 15:32, David Holmes wrote: Re-directing to the build-dev list. David On 26/05/2020 11:14 pm, Fedor wrote: Hello all! I've tried to crossbuild jdk using current http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk/jdk/ sources and noticed that build requires write permissions to bootstrap jdk. Say

Re: suggesting fix: cross-compilation is requiring write permissions to bootstrap jdk

Re-directing to the build-dev list. David On 26/05/2020 11:14 pm, Fedor wrote: Hello all! I've tried to crossbuild jdk using current http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk/jdk/ sources and noticed that build requires write permissions to bootstrap jdk. The problem is it tries to write/rewrite class

Re: RFR: JDK-8239799 Cross-compilation ARM32/AARCH clientvm builds fails after JDK-8239450

Looks good. /Erik On 2020-02-27 06:56, Magnus Ihse Bursie wrote: The JVM feature rewrite changed spec.gmk so that JVM_FEATURE_ was only set for the variants actually being built. However, in buildjdk-spec.gmk we override the selected variant with 'server' when building the buildjdk, but we re

RFR: JDK-8239799 Cross-compilation ARM32/AARCH clientvm builds fails after JDK-8239450

The JVM feature rewrite changed spec.gmk so that JVM_FEATURE_ was only set for the variants actually being built. However, in buildjdk-spec.gmk we override the selected variant with 'server' when building the buildjdk, but we relied on the set of features detected for the target jdk. This worke

Re: RFR: 8234535: Cross compilation fails due to missing CFLAGS for the BUILD_CC

commit it into the repository for me? Thanks, Christoph Erik Joelsson wrote on 2019-11-22 17:19:08: From: Erik Joelsson To: [email protected], [email protected] Date: 2019-11-22 17:19 Subject: Re: RFR: 8234535: Cross compilation fails due to missing CFLAGS for the

Re: RFR: 8234535: Cross compilation fails due to missing CFLAGS for the BUILD_CC

2019-11-22 17:19:08: > From: Erik Joelsson > To: [email protected], [email protected] > Date: 2019-11-22 17:19 > Subject: Re: RFR: 8234535: Cross compilation fails due to missing > CFLAGS for the BUILD_CC > > Hello Christoph, > > On 2019-11-2

Re: RFR: 8234535: Cross compilation fails due to missing CFLAGS for the BUILD_CC

rt different toolchain types for cross and native compiler. If we ever will, then this variable will be needed, so I think it should stay. I tried the change and compiled on an amd64 linux machine for amd64, and cross-compiled for linux on armv7 and linux on aarch64. I don't have access to oth

RFR: 8234535: Cross compilation fails due to missing CFLAGS for the BUILD_CC

sible to simply remove it. I tried the change and compiled on an amd64 linux machine for amd64, and cross-compiled for linux on armv7 and linux on aarch64. I don't have access to other cross-compilation environments and would like to ask others to review and try out the change. Thanks, Christoph

Re: RFR: JDK-8160926: FLAGS_COMPILER_CHECK_ARGUMENTS doesn't handle cross-compilation

On 2019-02-05 18:55, Erik Joelsson wrote: On 2019-02-05 01:12, Magnus Ihse Bursie wrote: On 2019-02-05 01:36, Erik Joelsson wrote: Please review this fix for configure flags checking. The macros for checking compiler capabilities were not able to handle cross compilation very well. With

Re: RFR: JDK-8160926: FLAGS_COMPILER_CHECK_ARGUMENTS doesn't handle cross-compilation

On 2019-02-05 01:12, Magnus Ihse Bursie wrote: On 2019-02-05 01:36, Erik Joelsson wrote: Please review this fix for configure flags checking. The macros for checking compiler capabilities were not able to handle cross compilation very well. With this fix, they accept an optional PREFIX

Re: RFR: JDK-8160926: FLAGS_COMPILER_CHECK_ARGUMENTS doesn't handle cross-compilation

On 2019-02-05 01:36, Erik Joelsson wrote: Please review this fix for configure flags checking. The macros for checking compiler capabilities were not able to handle cross compilation very well. With this fix, they accept an optional PREFIX argument, instructing them to check the compiler with

RFR: JDK-8160926: FLAGS_COMPILER_CHECK_ARGUMENTS doesn't handle cross-compilation

Please review this fix for configure flags checking. The macros for checking compiler capabilities were not able to handle cross compilation very well. With this fix, they accept an optional PREFIX argument, instructing them to check the compiler with the given prefix (which is either empty or

Re: RFR (S) 8208665: Amend cross-compilation docs with qemu-debootstrap recipe

Looks good to me. /Erik On 2018-08-23 03:11, Aleksey Shipilev wrote: Hi, Updated webrev, now with regenerated building.html (thanks Erik J.!): http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~shade/8208665/webrev.04/ There are also a few formatting changes to make it render correctly. On 08/14/2018 10:24 PM

Re: RFR (S) 8208665: Amend cross-compilation docs with qemu-debootstrap recipe

On 08/14/2018 09:24 PM, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote: > With current versions of qemu (either from git or Debian unstable), you should > even be able to build OpenJDK natively inside the emulated chroot. Gosh. Does that mean that, after all these years, they've fixed the bug that delivered segf

Re: RFR (S) 8208665: Amend cross-compilation docs with qemu-debootstrap recipe

Hi, Updated webrev, now with regenerated building.html (thanks Erik J.!): http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~shade/8208665/webrev.04/ There are also a few formatting changes to make it render correctly. On 08/14/2018 10:24 PM, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote: > Thanks for this. This is actually a cl

Re: RFR (S) 8208665: Amend cross-compilation docs with qemu-debootstrap recipe

Hi Aleksey! On 08/13/2018 12:26 PM, Aleksey Shipilev wrote: > This is the recipe I have been using for creating artifacts on my personal CI > server [1], and it > seems to work reliably starting from jdk11. It is partially applicable for > building jdk{8,9,10}, but > freetype and friends still n

Re: RFR (S) 8208665: Amend cross-compilation docs with qemu-debootstrap recipe

On 08/13/2018 05:16 PM, Martin Buchholz wrote: > Aleksey, your use of "base" platform seems a bit unusual.  Elsewhere in the > same document, it's > referred to as "build".  Otherwise looks good (thanks for documenting). Right. Got mixed up with Debian's "base system". Fixed here: http://cr.open

Re: RFR (S) 8208665: Amend cross-compilation docs with qemu-debootstrap recipe

Aleksey, your use of "base" platform seems a bit unusual. Elsewhere in the same document, it's referred to as "build". Otherwise looks good (thanks for documenting). On Mon, Aug 13, 2018 at 3:26 AM, Aleksey Shipilev wrote: > RFE: > https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8208665 > > Webrev:

RFR (S) 8208665: Amend cross-compilation docs with qemu-debootstrap recipe

RFE: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8208665 Webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~shade/8208665/webrev.02/ Not sure if building.html is supposed to be generated automatically? This is the recipe I have been using for creating artifacts on my personal CI server [1], and it seems to w

Re: RFR 8202210: jlink uses little-endian for big-endian cross-compilation targets

On 04/25/2018 12:08 PM, Alan Bateman wrote: > On 25/04/2018 10:06, Aleksey Shipilev wrote: >> I was doing the exercise of cross-compiling from x86_64 to most OpenJDK >> arches, and we have >> discovered the bug with endianness. Right now, compiling big-endian s390x >> target on little-endian >> x

Re: RFR 8202210: jlink uses little-endian for big-endian cross-compilation targets

Hi Aleksey, the fix looks good. Best Regards, Thomas On Wed, Apr 25, 2018 at 11:29 AM, Aleksey Shipilev wrote: > On 04/25/2018 11:14 AM, Magnus Ihse Bursie wrote: >>> diff -r 5d2da44780ac make/Images.gmk >>> --- a/make/Images.gmkWed Apr 25 10:38:07 2018 +0200 >>> +++ b/make/Images.gmkWe

Re: RFR 8202210: jlink uses little-endian for big-endian cross-compilation targets

On 25/04/2018 10:06, Aleksey Shipilev wrote: Hi, I was doing the exercise of cross-compiling from x86_64 to most OpenJDK arches, and we have discovered the bug with endianness. Right now, compiling big-endian s390x target on little-endian x86_64 host produces the modules blob that cannot be

Re: RFR 8202210: jlink uses little-endian for big-endian cross-compilation targets

On 04/25/2018 11:14 AM, Magnus Ihse Bursie wrote: >> diff -r 5d2da44780ac make/Images.gmk >> --- a/make/Images.gmk    Wed Apr 25 10:38:07 2018 +0200 >> +++ b/make/Images.gmk    Wed Apr 25 10:55:04 2018 +0200 >> @@ -117,7 +117,7 @@ >> >>   JLINK_TOOL := $(JLINK) -J-Djlink.debug=true \ >>   --mod

Re: RFR 8202210: jlink uses little-endian for big-endian cross-compilation targets

read on real s390x. It seems to be a simple overlook in image building, and we should pass target-cpu endianness to jlink. During the build, jlink is called twice: first for the interim image build, then for the final image build. In cross-compilation, it seems only the final image build should

RFR 8202210: jlink uses little-endian for big-endian cross-compilation targets

overlook in image building, and we should pass target-cpu endianness to jlink. During the build, jlink is called twice: first for the interim image build, then for the final image build. In cross-compilation, it seems only the final image build should take target-cpu endianness. (Aside: what is our

Re: RFR: JDK-8199451 Create linux-aarch64 cross-compilation devkit, and fix cross-compilation

have one target. This is probably fine because that is how we effectively use it today anyway. /Erik On 2018-03-12 03:08, Magnus Ihse Bursie wrote: While Oracle no longer actively supports linux-aarch64, it is good to keep the build functioning for cross-compilation. I've created a d

Re: RFR: JDK-8199451 Create linux-aarch64 cross-compilation devkit, and fix cross-compilation

rsie wrote: While Oracle no longer actively supports linux-aarch64, it is good to keep the build functioning for cross-compilation. I've created a devkit for cross-compilation from linux-x64 to linux-aarch64, and fixed a recently introduced bug with buildjdk SYSROOT_CFLA

Re: RFR: JDK-8199451 Create linux-aarch64 cross-compilation devkit, and fix cross-compilation

On 12/03/18 10:08, Magnus Ihse Bursie wrote: > While Oracle no longer actively supports linux-aarch64, it is good to > keep the build functioning for cross-compilation. > > I've created a devkit for cross-compilation from linux-x64 to > linux-aarch64, and fixed a recently

RFR: JDK-8199451 Create linux-aarch64 cross-compilation devkit, and fix cross-compilation

While Oracle no longer actively supports linux-aarch64, it is good to keep the build functioning for cross-compilation. I've created a devkit for cross-compilation from linux-x64 to linux-aarch64, and fixed a recently introduced bug with buildjdk SYSROOT_CFLAGS. Bug:

Re: Cross compilation

Hi, Thank you for pointing me out to the documentation (btw quite good document), I was able to cross compile openjdk-9 from sources but (I forgot to mention...my apologies...) I was looking for information to cross-compile openjdk-8. After some reading of the makefiles and build scripts, I have de

Re: Cross compilation

> 10 juli 2017 kl. 12:25 skrev Manuel Alonso Tajuelo : > > Hi, > cannot find any doc explaining how to cross compile openjdk. http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk9/jdk9/raw-file/tip/common/doc/building.html See the section "Cross-compiling". /Magnus > Is out there > any guidelines on how to perfor

Re: Cross compilation

On 11/07/17 11:04, Xen wrote: > (Also I was trying JDK 7, version 8 may have a much better build > system). It has. Much. -- Andrew Haley Java Platform Lead Engineer Red Hat UK Ltd. EAC8 43EB D3EF DB98 CC77 2FAD A5CD 6035 332F A671

Re: Cross compilation

t when you have such a full-fledged system available already, the need for cross-compilation also grows much less, since it has already been done, unless you are developing I guess. I mean if you have not changed the JDK there is usually not much reason to cross-compile to a system that alre

Re: Cross compilation

On 07/11/2017 11:53 AM, Andrew Haley wrote: >> Just make sure you have at least Debian Jessie for openjdk-8. > > I've always assumed that you must have a target system to test on, > so all you have to do is install everything on the target and then > copy an image of its root filesystem. I've eve

Re: Cross compilation

On 11/07/17 10:37, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote: > On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 11:32:20AM +0200, Xen wrote: >> You will need all X libraries as well though. I personally couldn't manage >> without using OpenEmbedded. > > It's fairly easy to do that on Debian thanks to Multi-Arch. You can > install

Re: Cross compilation

On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 11:32:20AM +0200, Xen wrote: > You will need all X libraries as well though. I personally couldn't manage > without using OpenEmbedded. It's fairly easy to do that on Debian thanks to Multi-Arch. You can install all build dependencies for the target architecture simply from

  1   2   >