Ah, now I got it!
The problem is with your closed sources which also have their own closed,
autoconf-generated config file which has to be recreated after the OpenJDK
autoconf-generated configure files changes.
The warning "Warning: The generated configure file contains changes not
present in the custom generated file." from 'common/autoconf/configure:'
actually checks exactly that:
if test -e $conf_custom_script_dir/generated-configure.sh; then
# Test if open configure is newer than custom configure, if so, custom
needs to
# be regenerated. This test is required to ensure consistency with custom
source.
conf_open_configure_timestamp=`grep DATE_WHEN_GENERATED=
$conf_script_dir/generated-configure.sh | cut -d"=" -f 2`
conf_custom_configure_timestamp=`grep DATE_WHEN_GENERATED=
$conf_custom_script_dir/generated-configure.sh | cut -d"=" -f 2`
if test $conf_open_configure_timestamp -gt
$conf_custom_configure_timestamp; then
echo "Warning: The generated configure file contains changes not
present in the custom generated file."
run_autogen_or_fail
fi
fi
I obviously can not fix that:)
But if you've already done a successful build on any other platform, you
can just copy the generated
'$conf_custom_script_dir/generated-configure.sh' from that build into you
workspace and that should do the job!
Very nasty Closedsource/JPRT problems:( When will we finally overcome this
mess...
Regards,
Volker
On Tue, Jul 2, 2013 at 10:42 AM, Volker Simonis <volker.simo...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 2, 2013 at 9:56 AM, Vladimir Kozlov
> <vladimir.koz...@oracle.com> wrote:
>> JPRT uses own target to build forest:
>>
>> jprt_build_product: sanity all_product_build
>>
>>
http://hg.openjdk.java.net/ppc-aix-port/stage/file/c156084add48/make/jprt.gmk
>>
>> That is why 'make sanity' is called I think.
>>
>> Note the next warning was present in JPRT logs on all platforms:
>>
>> Warning: The generated configure file contains changes not present in the
>> custom generated file.
>>
>> I verified that submitted source common/autoconf/generated-configure.sh
is
>> matching file in stage repo plus changes from patch.
>>
>> Hmm, may be the problem is next change in generated-configure.sh:
>>
>> -DATE_WHEN_GENERATED=1371547824
>> +DATE_WHEN_GENERATED=1372238067
>>
>> It is date when Volker generated generated-configure.sh but the date of
>> changed .m4 files is when I applied patch which is later. It looks like I
>> need to regenerate generated-configure.sh file myself as Erik said. I
will
>> give it a try tomorrow.
>>
>
> I doubt that that's the only reason, because I did exactly the same
> yesterday on MacOS without these problems:
> - clone jdk8/jdk8
> - import the patches into the base and jdk repositroy
> - configure
> - make
>
> Is there a way I can simulate a JPRT build?
> If I just call 'make jprt_build_product' in the build directory where
> I have previously called 'configure' it fails because it wants to call
> configure again and doesn't find it.
> So from which directory am I supposed to start a JPRT build and which
> parameters should I pass to it?
>
>> Vladimir
>>
>>
>> On 7/2/13 12:31 AM, Volker Simonis wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Erik,
>>>
>>> thank you for looking into this.
>>>
>>> On Tue, Jul 2, 2013 at 9:16 AM, Erik Joelsson <erik.joels...@oracle.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> This looks like you have applied a change to configure input files
(*.m4)
>>>> and haven't regenerated configure locally afterwards. The JPRT machines
>>>> don't have autoconf setup so they can't do it. In this case it looks
like
>>>> one of them, probably the mac, has a faulty version of autoconf that
gets
>>>> picked up. I have seen this happen before on mac.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Actually, that was my guess as well. On the other hand that's still
>>> strange, because my patch also contains an updated
>>> 'common/autoconf/generated-
>>> configure.sh' and it works on the other platforms (and also locally
>>> for me on MacOS X) without regenerating it. I just saw that the mail I
>>> wrote yesterday wasn't send to the lists so I quote my assumptions
>>> here:
>>>
>>> ...
>>> From your logs I only see that the make process does not find any
>>> configuration, but the configuration should have been created by
>>> running configure. Then it tries to call configure but doesn't succeed
>>> because it says "The generated configure file contains changes not
>>> present in the custom generated file." That's also strange because my
>>> changesets also patch 'common/autoconf/generated-
>>> configure.sh' so it should not be re-generated. And finally the build
>>> fails because there's not autoconf on Windows and probably because the
>>> autoconf on Mac is too old (the checked-in file is generated by
>>> autoconf 2.8).
>>>
>>> I've just synced jdk8/jdk8 and applied the two patches. I could build
>>> without any problems on MacOS X 10.8 with the following command line.
>>>
>>> sh /usr/work/d046063/OpenJDK/ppc-aix-port/stage/configure
>>> --with-boot-jdk=<path_to>/darwinintel64/output/sapjvm_7
>>> --with-target-bits=64 --with-debug-level=release
>>>
>>> make images LOG=debug
>>>
>>> Attached you can find the output I get from running configure.
>>>
>>> Could you please retry one more time? If you still have problems, can
>>> you please run configure by hand and post the output.
>>>
>>> PS: I also saw from your logs that '/usr/bin/make sanity' is called.
>>> This also seems strange to me because I think there aren't any sanity
>>> targets any more in the new build system. Maybe you have a mismatch
>>> between old and new build system?
>>> ...
>>>
>>> Erik, could you please try this locally on Mac or Windows and post you
>>> findings. Alternatively, could you please explain post the complete
>>> JPRT output and explain what JPRT is trying to do. From Vladimir's log
>>> snippets it's hard for me t understand the whole picture.
>>>
>>> Thank you and best regards,
>>> Volker
>>>
>>>> The fix is to execute "bash common/autoconf/autogen.sh" locally and
then
>>>> resubmit to jprt. You need to have autoconf version 2.67 or newer
>>>> installed
>>>> for it to work.
>>>>
>>>> /Erik
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 2013-07-02 05:48, Vladimir Kozlov wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Need help from JDK build experts.
>>>>>
>>>>> I applied next 2 changesets:
>>>>>
>>>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~simonis/webrevs/8017568_toplevel/
>>>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~simonis/webrevs/8017568_jdk/
>>>>>
>>>>> and got JPRT build problems (-control build) only on MacOS and Win64:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
http://bus2001067.us.oracle.com/archives/2013/06/2013-06-28-213927.vkozlov.ppc64_jdk_build_test/
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>> macosx_x64_10.7-product (details from log file)
>>>>>
>>>>> ...
>>>>>
>>>>> Warning: The generated configure file contains changes not present in
>>>>> the
>>>>> custom generated file.
>>>>> Running autogen.sh to correct the situation
>>>>> Autoconf found: /usr/bin/autoconf
>>>>> Autoconf-2.67 found:
>>>>> Generating generated-configure.sh with /usr/bin/autoconf
>>>>> /usr/bin/gm4:stdin:187: bad expression in eval: 32 > <dynamic>
>>>>> autom4te: /usr/bin/gm4 failed with exit status: 1
>>>>> Generating custom generated-configure.sh
>>>>> /usr/bin/gm4:stdin:187: bad expression in eval: 32 > <dynamic>
>>>>> autom4te: /usr/bin/gm4 failed with exit status: 1
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>> windows_x64_5.2-fastdebug (details from log file)
>>>>>
>>>>> ...
>>>>>
>>>>> Warning: The generated configure file contains changes not present in
>>>>> the
>>>>> custom generated file.
>>>>> Error: Cannot continue
>>>>> Cannot locate autoconf, unable to correct situation.
>>>>> Please install autoconf and run 'bash autogen.sh' to update the
>>>>> generated
>>>>> files.
>>>>> make: *** [bridge2configure] Error 1
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>
>>>>> Without these changes the output is:
>>>>>
>>>>> Running custom generated-configure.sh
>>>>> configure: Configuration created at Thu Jun 27 16:32:25 EDT 2013.
>>>>> configure: configure script generated at timestamp 1371547939.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>> Vladimir
>>>>>
>>>>> On 6/28/13 12:04 AM, Volker Simonis wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Ok, that's fine.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Could you please let me know when you've verified these changes. I
>>>>>> will then push them to the staging repository.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>> Volker
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 7:35 PM, Vladimir Kozlov
>>>>>> <vladimir.koz...@oracle.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 6/27/13 10:16 AM, Iris Clark wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This should not affect Hotspot in stage repo. Me or Albert will do
>>>>>>> JPRT
>>>>>>> bootstrap control build of jdk with this changes to make sure it
>>>>>>> works.
>>>>>>> After that Volker can push it into stage.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> When I talked about pushing *general* changes into main sources I
>>>>>>> meant
>>>>>>> changes with no ppc64 specific code. The example of such changes was
>>>>>>> recent
>>>>>>> Goetz's fix for '8017531: 8010460 changes broke
>>>>>>> bytecodeInterpreter.cpp'.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>> Vladimir
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
