Yes, that looks reasonable! If you want to, you can push this + Klose's fix.
/Magnus
> 31 aug. 2018 kl. 13:25 skrev John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
> <glaub...@physik.fu-berlin.de>:
>
> Hi Magnus!
>
> I just tested it and the following change in make/autoconf/flags.m4 is
> necessary as well so that gcc is not called with "-m64":
>
> diff -r 18afb2097ada -r 1f28530b1f46 make/autoconf/flags.m4
> --- a/make/autoconf/flags.m4 Fri Aug 31 11:43:06 2018 +0200
> +++ b/make/autoconf/flags.m4 Fri Aug 31 12:50:02 2018 +0200
> @@ -241,7 +241,8 @@
> elif test "x$TOOLCHAIN_TYPE" = xsolstudio; then
> MACHINE_FLAG="-m${OPENJDK_TARGET_CPU_BITS}"
> elif test "x$TOOLCHAIN_TYPE" = xgcc || test "x$TOOLCHAIN_TYPE" = xclang;
> then
> - if test "x$OPENJDK_TARGET_CPU_ARCH" = xx86 ||
> + if test "x$OPENJDK_TARGET_CPU_ARCH" = xx86 &&
> + test "x$OPENJDK_TARGET_CPU" != xx32 ||
> test "x$OPENJDK_TARGET_CPU_ARCH" = xsparc ||
> test "x$OPENJDK_TARGET_CPU_ARCH" = xppc; then
> MACHINE_FLAG="-m${OPENJDK_TARGET_CPU_BITS}"
>
> Adrian
>
>> On 08/31/2018 10:43 AM, Magnus Ihse Bursie wrote:
>> The necroposter strikes back! :-)
>>
>> I'm currently trying to fix or close all long standing bugs on
>> infrastructure/build, and now the time has come to JDK-8165440.
>>
>> This patch had a bit of bad timing when it was posted, since it could not be
>> accepted into mainline due to feature freeze, and there were no other repo
>> to accept it.
>>
>> I adjusted the patch to the current code base (which means that most parts
>> of it were not needed). What remains are two files. However, I can't test if
>> this works. Matthias, can you verify that this is a working patch for
>> jdk/jdk for the gnux32 target? If so, I'll sponsor this patch.
>>
>> diff --git a/make/autoconf/platform.m4 b/make/autoconf/platform.m4
>> --- a/make/autoconf/platform.m4
>> +++ b/make/autoconf/platform.m4
>> @@ -35,6 +35,10 @@
>> VAR_CPU_ARCH=x86
>> VAR_CPU_BITS=64
>> VAR_CPU_ENDIAN=little
>> + case "$host" in *x32)
>> + VAR_CPU=x32
>> + VAR_CPU_BITS=32
>> + esac
>> ;;
>> i?86)
>> VAR_CPU=x86
>> @@ -455,6 +459,8 @@
>> HOTSPOT_$1_CPU_DEFINE=IA32
>> elif test "x$OPENJDK_$1_CPU" = xx86_64; then
>> HOTSPOT_$1_CPU_DEFINE=AMD64
>> + elif test "x$OPENJDK_$1_CPU" = xx32; then
>> + HOTSPOT_$1_CPU_DEFINE=X32
>> elif test "x$OPENJDK_$1_CPU" = xsparcv9; then
>> HOTSPOT_$1_CPU_DEFINE=SPARC
>> elif test "x$OPENJDK_$1_CPU" = xaarch64; then
>> diff --git a/src/hotspot/os/linux/os_linux.cpp
>> b/src/hotspot/os/linux/os_linux.cpp
>> --- a/src/hotspot/os/linux/os_linux.cpp
>> +++ b/src/hotspot/os/linux/os_linux.cpp
>> @@ -1742,7 +1742,7 @@
>>
>> #if (defined IA32)
>> static Elf32_Half running_arch_code=EM_386;
>> -#elif (defined AMD64)
>> +#elif (defined AMD64) || defined(X32)
>> static Elf32_Half running_arch_code=EM_X86_64;
>> #elif (defined IA64)
>> static Elf32_Half running_arch_code=EM_IA_64;
>>
>> /Magnus
>>
>>> On 2016-09-06 01:01, David Holmes wrote:
>>> Hi Severin, Matthias,
>>>
>>>> On 5/09/2016 10:16 PM, Severin Gehwolf wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, 2016-09-05 at 14:03 +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
>>>>> The attached patch adds support for building zero for the x86_64-
>>>>> linux-gnux32
>>>>> target, having changes in the build system, hotspot and jdk.
>>>>>
>>>>> - the build system currently only derives the target from
>>>>> the cpu in PLATFORM_EXTRACT_VARS_FROM_CPU; that is not enough
>>>>> for the new target, which only differs by the ending of the
>>>>> triplet. However the $host macro should be available anywhere.
>>>>>
>>>>> - the hotspot part just handles the new "cpu"
>>>>>
>>>>> - GensrcX11Wrappers.gmk assumes that there is a black/white
>>>>> decision about -m32/-m64. The patch works around it. However
>>>>> the real patch should be to get these flags from the build
>>>>> system, and not hardcode itself.
>>>>>
>>>>> - the sysctl system call is unsupported in the x32 kernel, and
>>>>> just the include leads to a build error. From my point of view
>>>>> the header is not needed. I had successful builds on all other
>>>>> targets without including it. If you want to keep the include,
>>>>> then it should be guarded with
>>>>> #if !(defined(_ILP32) && defined(__x86_64__))
>>>>>
>>>>> Matthias
>>>>
>>>> I've filed this bug for this:
>>>> https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8165440
>>>
>>> Please note that as a P4 issue this can not be fixed given we have hit RDP1:
>>>
>>> http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/jdk9-dev/2016-August/004777.html
>>>
>>> Further this is filed as "bug" but seems to clearly be an enhancement, so
>>> you would need approval for it to come in post-Feature-Complete.
>>>
>>> Please consider if this is something that must be fixed for 9 or can be
>>> deferred. Otherwise you will need to follow additional approval processes.
>>>
>>> Sorry.
>>>
>>> David (just the messenger!)
>>>
>>>> Unfortunately, I have no way of testing it.
>>>>
>>>> Cheers,
>>>> Severin
>>>>
>
> --
> .''`. John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
> : :' : Debian Developer - glaub...@debian.org
> `. `' Freie Universitaet Berlin - glaub...@physik.fu-berlin.de
> `- GPG: 62FF 8A75 84E0 2956 9546 0006 7426 3B37 F5B5 F913
