Hi Sasha,

Trying to trace through this is somewhat complex :)

So ...

At the top level if we see ppc64le then we set VAR_CPU to ppc64le instead of ppc64. However, once we get into hotspot build we want ARCH to be ppc64 again (in hotspot-spec.gmk.in) - why is that?

Inside hotpot we want:

SRCARCH := ppc
BUILDARCH := ppc64
LIBARCH := ppc64le

right? So can ARCH not be ppc64le from the top-level and then we adjust SRCARCH and BUILDARCH? And avoid the top-level changes to ARCH.

More comments below ...

On 30/11/2015 12:39 PM, Alexander Smundak wrote:
Please review the patch set that fixes
https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8073139: PPC64: User-visible
arch directory and os.arch value on ppc64le cause issues with Java
tooling:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~asmundak/8073139/hotspot/webrev.02

agent/src/os/linux/LinuxDebuggerLocal.c
agent/src/os/linux/libproc.h

Is it not the case that ppc64le -> ppc64, so that we can avoid "if defined(ppc64) | defined(ppc64le) ? I would hope that the only places in the sources where you need to check for ppc64le is where that code differs from the ppc64 code.

---

make/defs.make

See above discussion re ARCH etc.

---

src/share/vm/runtime/vm_version.cpp

I think this messy code block relates to builds where CPU is not set - which should never be the case these days. Maybe just put in a check "ifndef CPU -> error" ?

http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~asmundak/8073139/jdk/webrev.02

No comments.

http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~asmundak/8073139/root/webrev.02

Again referring back to earlier ARCH discussion, I don't like seeing the platform specific code in hotspot-spec.gmk.in.

Thanks,
David

The patch is based on the patch by Andrew Hughes (gnu.and...@redhat.com),
please see the thread
http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/hotspot-dev/2015-February/017148.html
The current patch set adds the changes to show the correct architecture in the
'java  -Xinternalversion' output and test_env.sh (both pointed by
goetz.lindenma...@sap.com), and fixes Serviceability Agent and
  disassembler (hsdis).

I need a sponsor.

Sasha

Reply via email to