Hi, having said what I wanted to say about the build output directory path, I'm fine with both solutions. In the end it affects only a few line in shared make files.
Best regards, Goetz -----Original Message----- From: hotspot-dev [mailto:hotspot-dev-boun...@openjdk.java.net] On Behalf Of David Holmes Sent: Montag, 17. März 2014 05:14 To: Alexander Smundak; HotSpot Open Source Developers; build-dev Subject: Re: RFR (M): 8036767 PPC64: Support for little endian execution model On 15/03/2014 7:11 AM, Alexander Smundak wrote: > Ping. My position hasn't changed. I don't think this needs to be, or should be, a distinct architecture. I've added build-dev to cc list to see what our build experts think. David ----- > On Wed, Mar 12, 2014 at 4:59 PM, Alexander Smundak <asmun...@google.com> > wrote: >> I was concerned by the term 'variant', which might suggest that the >> applications >> built for PPC64 and PPC64LE are binary compatible. They are not. >> >> On Wed, Mar 12, 2014 at 3:55 PM, David Holmes <david.hol...@oracle.com> >> wrote: >>> On 12/03/2014 9:19 AM, Alexander Smundak wrote: >>>> >>>> On Tue, Mar 11, 2014 at 3:51 PM, Vladimir Kozlov >>>> <vladimir.koz...@oracle.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> It would only help if you could do cross compilation to have both build >>>>> variants at the same place. Currently you can only build le variant on >>>>> ppc64le machine and vice versa. That is why, I think, David asked if we >>>>> can >>>>> control what variant to build. >>>> >>>> Just to clarify the situation a bit: ppc64le is not a variant of ppc64. >>>> That is, >>>> an application compiled for the little-endian PowerPC64 does not "just >>>> run" on >>>> the big-endian PowerPC64 (albeit OS can have such feature, similar to the >>>> ability of the Linux running on x86_64 CPU to run 32-bit x86 >>>> applications). >>>> So ppc64le is a different architecture from ppc64. >>> >>> >>> I disagree with that classification for "architecture" and it seems at odds >>> with the literature which describes the endian-ness selection as a "mode". >>> >>> David >>> ----- >>> >>> >>>>> I would like to see the changes based on Volker suggestion. We can >>>>> compare >>>>> them and decide which way to go. >>>> >>>> Volker has the detailed suggestion here: >>>> >>>> http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/ppc-aix-port-dev/2014-March/001790.html >>>> and it involves additional Make variable and if statements in the >>>> platform makefile >>>> where they are not supposed to be present. >>>> >>>
