Hi Magnus, thanks again for the review. Please see my comments inline:
On Mon, Sep 9, 2013 at 12:23 PM, Magnus Ihse Bursie < magnus.ihse.bur...@oracle.com> wrote: > Hi Volker, > > Some more comments inlined. > > OK, common/autoconf/build-aux/autoconf-config.guess was too old and > didn't knew about AIX 7 so it returned the default AIX fallback which is > 'rs6000-ibm-aix'. I have now fixed 'autoconf-config.guess' to know about > AIX 7 (a one character change which is already in autoconf-2.69 so we won't > have problems if you should ever update autoconf-config.guess). > > > Hmm... While more elegant, the idea was that autoconf-config.guess should > be a strict copy of the config.guess file from the autoconf package. The > whole idea of wrapping it in a custom config.guess was to avoid "forking" > the autoconf config.guess, with small changes (like this) that would be > hard to track and might get lost if we update to a newer version from the > upstream autoconf file. > > That being said, since we settled on autoconf 2.69, we really should > update the file to config.guess from autoconf-2.69. I've started a test run > on our internal test system with the config.guess from 2.69 to see if it > breaks any existing platforms. If not, I suggest we do a fast integration > of the new config.guess. > > Can you hold on with your changes until a new config.guess comes in? Even > if you're just making a small change that will be reverted soon after, I > think it would set a unfortunate precedent. > That's OK for me. Actually my change still works without the changes in "config.guess" on AIX 5.3. And it will automatically start working once we get the new "config.guess". > Ahrgh, all these proud compilers with their own ways of expressing the >> same functionality. :( I assume that you are using the COMP_MODE_OPTION in >> the jdk projct? I couldn't find any references to it in the Hotspot build >> changes, and otherwise there seems to be no reason to export it in the >> spec.gmk file. >> >> > Yes, exactly. It is used in 'jdk/makefiles/GensrcX11Wrappers.gmk' > (MEMORY_MODEL_FLAG="$(COMP_MODE_OPTION)$*"). > > Once again the X11 wrappers. We should really make an effort and get rid > of them. :-/ > > > I don't mind:) > I fully agree with the criticism on the name:) After we already have > 'COMPILER_SUPPORTS_TARGET_BITS_FLAG' I've simply renamed it to > 'COMPILER_TARGET_BITS_FLAG'. I think that's much more appropriate and if > you don't like it we should ask the one who invented > 'COMPILER_SUPPORTS_TARGET_BITS_FLAG' :) And I had to set > 'COMPILER_TARGET_BITS_FLAG' a little earlier such that is availabel in > PLATFORM_SET_COMPILER_TARGET_BITS_FLAGS. > > Sounds good! Nice aligning with the existing macro. > > However, you forgot to change the name in spec.gmk.in. (At least in the > webrev you published.) > Good catch! I didn't realize it because the build in the stage repositories currently doesn’t reach the X11 wrappers. I've changed it and moved it near the definition of 'COMPILER_SUPPORTS_TARGET_BITS_FLAG' > 2. After you pointed out that setting '-q64' as extra flags on the > configure command line is not the way it is supposed to work I recalled > that we also have this problem on older Linux/PPC64 boxes (e.g. SLES 10) > where the default compiler produces 32-bit objects by default. To fix this > problem as well, I've inserted a call to > PLATFORM_SET_COMPILER_TARGET_BITS_FLAGS followed by a second call to > AC_CHECK_SIZEOF([int *], [1111]) in the case where we would otherwise have > bailed out because the "TESTED_TARGET_CPU_BITS" differs from the actual > "OPENJDK_TARGET_CPU_BITS". I think this change should not affect any > existing platforms because it will only be triggered where we woould have > bailed out with an error anyway. > > Also, the workaround for autoconf bug > http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/autoconf/2010-07/msg00004.html in > AC_CHECK_SIZEOF isn't needed any more now that we require at least > autoconf-2.69 because the problem was fixed in 2.67. And if I looked at it > more carefully I must say that I don't understand the workaround at all. In > my opinion, the test "x$SIZEOF_INT_P" != "x$ac_cv_sizeof_int_p" will always > fail, because the AC_CHECK_SIZEOF macro only writes a define for > SIZEOF_INT_P into "confdefs.h" (as can be seen in generated-configure.h) > but it never defines it in the shell. And defining SIZEOF_INT_P in the > configure shell script wouldn't help if the define written by the > AC_CHECK_SIZEOF macro was wrong (as described in the bug). So Ithink the > best is to remove the workaround and use "ac_cv_sizeof_int_p" in the places > where we used AC_CHECK_SIZEOF before. > > > Good to get rid of the old workaround. I agree, it looks kind of weird. I > think I might have been behind some of the weirdness; I think I interpreted > the autoconf documentation as if it should assign a variable SIZEOF_INT_P > in the configure script, and that the $ac_* variables were internal > variables that should not be directly accessed. In the current > documentation, at least, the $ac_cv_sizeof* macro is officially mentioned > so it should be safe to use. > > However, your second relies on some internal autoconf magic, by unsetting > variables and defines. We've tried to avoid that, but at times there were > no choice. Since we're about to fail anyway, and the code is more in place > for future, strange platforms, it's probably no harm. > > Exactly. Is it OK if I push it now to http://hg.openjdk.java.net/ppc-aix-port/ppc-aix-port/stage or is there anything you want to test first? > /Magnus >
