Hi, Volker. I think that the right thing for this change [1] is for you to push into ppc-aix-port/stage once you get the necessary reviews (presumably Erik and possibly Alan). While your changeset contains some general purpose updates, it also contains PPC/AIX-specific files which can't be added to a JDK release repository until stage is pushed into the a JDK release.
The recommendation to push to stage of course assumes that Vladimir doesn't think that this will adversely affect the Hotspot work already being pushed to stage. Thanks, iris [1]: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~simonis/webrevs/8017568_jdk/ -----Original Message----- From: Volker Simonis [mailto:volker.simo...@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, June 27, 2013 9:23 AM To: Erik Joelsson Cc: Kumar Srinivasan; build-dev; ppc-aix-port-...@openjdk.java.net; Alan Bateman Subject: Re: RFR (XS): Enable new build on Linux/PPC64 (jdk part) Hi Erik, we have no polices which are carved in stone:) It's all done informally and by common sense. The main reason for the ppc-aix-port/stage repository is to have a sandbox for in-depth review and testing of changes we had to make in shared code before pushing them to the main repository (and this especially applies to hotspot changes). If you feel comfortable with the current changes and don't think that they will break anything (e.g. by running tests build on your supported platforms including the closed source ones) I'd really appreciate if you could push them to the build repository. Otherwise I'll push them to the staging repository and you'll get them once we're finished with the integration of the port. Thank you and best regards, Volker On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 1:51 PM, Erik Joelsson <erik.joels...@oracle.com> wrote: > > > On 2013-06-27 13:00, Volker Simonis wrote: > > > > > On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 12:16 PM, Erik Joelsson > <erik.joels...@oracle.com> > wrote: >> >> Hello Volker, >> >> I wasn't aware of this project until now. From what I (now) >> understand, generic patches can go into jdk8 repos, but port specific >> things need to go to staging and go in with the rest later. These >> changes contain a couple of port specific things so as it looks now >> they would need to go through staging. >> > > Yes, that's the general approach. But I'd argue that for the most part > this changes are generic (enable CPP-interpreter, enable CORE build, > fix for broken ld on SuSE, replacing OPENWIN_LIB by X_LIB, fix typos) > with only very few PPC64 specific parts (map-files and a few defines). > The problem we want to avoid is that some of our fixes go into the > main repositories in parallel which would result in merging pain when > integrating the staging into the main repository. > > So if you think you don't need any of the general fixes any time soon, > I'll push the changes into the staging repository. Otherwise I think > it would be better to push them right into the main repositories. > > Several of the general fixes in there are good and I don't want to > hinder those getting in. I also don't want to break policies I'm not familiar > with. > > /Erik > > Thanks, > Volker > >> >> /Erik >> >> >> On 2013-06-27 12:03, Volker Simonis wrote: >> >> Hi Erik, >> >> as Vladimir explained, we have a special staging repository for our >> PPC64/AIX port: >> >> I would be happy if you could push the changes right into the >> build-infra repositories and we will then get them into our staging >> repository via jdk8/jdk8. >> >> Otherwise I'll have to push them to our staging repository and later >> when the whole port is completed in the staging repo they will be >> bulk-integrated into jdk8. >> >> What do you think? >> >> Regards, >> Volker >> >> >> On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 6:53 PM, Vladimir Kozlov >> <vladimir.koz...@oracle.com> wrote: >>> >>> Erik, >>> >>> We have special staging forest for PPC64/AIX port: >>> >>> http://hg.openjdk.java.net/ppc-aix-port/stage >>> >>> We collect Hotspot and JDK changes there for testing before pushing >>> into main sources in a future. But some general fixes we push >>> directly into our main sources. >>> If you think these build changes are acceptable for main, please, >>> ask someone sponsor these changes. >>> >>> Alan is our official contact for PPC64/AIX project. I CC him. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Vladimir >>> >>> >>> On 6/26/13 8:56 AM, Erik Joelsson wrote: >>>> >>>> Hello, >>>> >>>> If you by staging area mean the build-infra forest, that's more or >>>> less dead now. >>>> >>>> I think these changes look good now (both top level and jdk). It >>>> should be fine to push this to jdk8/build. >>>> >>>> /Erik >>>> >>>> On 2013-06-26 17:28, Volker Simonis wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Hi Erik, >>>>> >>>>> thank you for looking at this. I've prepared a new webrev at: >>>>> >>>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~simonis/webrevs/8017568_jdk/ >>>>> <http://cr.openjdk.java.net/%7Esimonis/webrevs/8017568_jdk/> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> What do you think, do you want to push this directly into the >>>>> build repositories or should I push it into the staging repository first? >>>>> >>>>> Please see my further comments inline. >>>>> >>>>> Thank you and best regards, >>>>> Volker >>>>> >>>>> On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 12:41 PM, Erik Joelsson >>>>> <erik.joels...@oracle.com <mailto:erik.joels...@oracle.com>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 2013-06-25 12:27, Erik Joelsson wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Hello Volker, >>>>> >>>>> On 2013-06-24 19:23, Volker Simonis wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Hi, >>>>> >>>>> could somebody please review the following change and >>>>> create an appropriate >>>>> Bug ID for it: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~simonis/webrevs/linux_ppc_build_jdk/ >>>>> >>>>> <http://cr.openjdk.java.net/%7Esimonis/webrevs/linux_ppc_build_jdk >>>>> /> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> The patch contains two little changes which are required >>>>> to build the class >>>>> library part of the OpenJDK on Linux/PPC64. Most of the >>>>> build magic is >>>>> contained in the top-level part of this change which is >>>>> separately reviewed >>>>> at >>>>> >>>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~simonis/webrevs/linux_ppc_build_top >>>>> >>>>> <http://cr.openjdk.java.net/%7Esimonis/webrevs/linux_ppc_build_top >>>>> > >>>>> >>>>> CompileLaunchers.gmk >>>>> >>>>> Remove mapfile from build instructions of BUILD_UNPACKEXE: >>>>> >>>>> CFLAGS_macosx:=-fPIC, \ >>>>> - >>>>> >>>>> MAPFILE:=$(JDK_TOPDIR)/makefiles/mapfiles/libunpack/mapfile-vers-unpack200,\ >>>>> LDFLAGS:=$(UNPACKEXE_ZIPOBJS),\ >>>>> >>>>> I think it makes no sense to use a version script file >>>>> for an executable >>>>> and older linkers (e.g. on SLES 10) complain with: >>>>> "*Invalid version tag >>>>> `SUNWprivate_1.1'. Only anonymous version tag is allowed >>>>> in executable.*" >>>>> The GNU ld >>>>> >>>>> manual<http://ftp.gnu.org/old-gnu/Manuals/ld-2.9.1/html_node/ld_25.html>states: >>>>> "*Version scripts are only meaningful when creating shared >>>>> libraries.*" >>>>> Morover unpack200 was the only executable which used a >>>>> version script file. >>>>> >>>>> Unpackexe has some weirdness and this isn't surprising me. >>>>> Would be good if someone with more historic knowledge could >>>>> fill in on the reason for this. Someone apparently went >>>>> through the trouble of creating a special mapfile for this >>>>> executable. Also, if not using it, should it be removed? >>>>> >>>>> I looked closer at this. These mapfiles were explicitly added in >>>>> http://bugs.sun.com/view_bug.do?bug_id=7033954, but it was noted >>>>> that it broke builds for architectures that didn't have mapfiles >>>>> defined. If you look at the launchers, the mapfile is only set if >>>>> the arch specific one exists. I think a safer change here would be >>>>> to make the mapfile conditional on platform or arch for unpackexe. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I still do not fully understand why we need map-files for >>>>> executables, but I also understand that you don't want to change the >>>>> current setup. >>>>> So I went the hard (and hopefully right:) way and implemented a >>>>> detection of the buggy linkers on older SuSE distros (e.g. on SLES >>>>> 10) which complain with: "Invalid version tag `SUNWprivate_1.1' >>>>> during the configure step (see top-level change). Unfortunately we >>>>> still have quite a lot of these systems so we really need the >>>>> build with that buggy ld. >>>>> >>>>> I've therefore added map files with anonymous version tags for >>>>> these buggy linkers which are only used if the buggy linker was >>>>> detected during the configure step (i.e. if >>>>> USING_BROKEN_SUSE_LD=yes). Notice that this is no PPC64 specific >>>>> problem but a occurs on all SuSE 10 platforms. >>>>> >>>>> And you've been right. I also had to add the arch specific map >>>>> files for ppc64 in order to use them for the other launchers. >>>>> >>>>> Kumar, you made the change referred to here, do you have anything >>>>> to add? >>>>> >>>>> /Erik >>>>> >>>>> Fix typo (replace 'defalt: all' by 'default') >>>>> >>>>> default: all >>>>> >>>>> CompileNativeLibraries.gmk >>>>> >>>>> Only use $(OPENWIN_LIB) for linking LIBSPLASHSCREEN on >>>>> Solaris! The old >>>>> code worked only accidentally when the X-libraries are in >>>>> the default >>>>> linker path anyway. The right solution is to use $(X_LIBS) >>>>> if not on >>>>> Windows or Solaris. >>>>> >>>>> Append -DX_ARCH=X_PPC64 to LIBJSOUND_CFLAGS on PPC64. >>>>> The value of >>>>> X_ARCHisn't actually used on the PPC architectures, but >>>>> there's a >>>>> check to verify >>>>> that it is set. >>>>> >>>>> Fix typo (replace 'defalt: all' by 'default') >>>>> >>>>> default: all >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Otherwise looks good. >>>>> >>>>> /Erik >>>>> >>>>> >> >
