yes, there was the backport review requeset, and there was another one before that, but both never got pushed to 8u. There also were webrevs for the backport, which didn't apply any more after a while. So it's good if someone drives this now, finally :)
Best regards, Goetz. > -----Original Message----- > From: Severin Gehwolf <sgehw...@redhat.com> > Sent: Dienstag, 2. Oktober 2018 15:00 > To: Lindenmaier, Goetz <goetz.lindenma...@sap.com>; Erik Joelsson > <erik.joels...@oracle.com>; hotspot-dev <hotspot- > d...@openjdk.java.net>; ppc-aix-port-dev <ppc-aix-port- > d...@openjdk.java.net>; build-dev <build-dev@openjdk.java.net> > Subject: Re: [PING] [8u] RFR: 8073139: PPC64: User-visible arch directory and > os.arch value on ppc64le cause issues with Java tooling > > Hi Goetz, > > I'm a bit confused :-/ > > On Tue, 2018-10-02 at 12:39 +0000, Lindenmaier, Goetz wrote: > > Hi Severin, > > > > here for example: http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/build-dev/2015- > July/015370.html > > As far as I can see that was relating to the JDK-head fix which wasn't > available at the time (July vs. pushed in Dec). The original review > thread was here: > http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/build-dev/2015- > December/016103.html > > JDK-8073139 has been fixed in JDK 9+ since December 14, 2015. > > > While the fix proposed there looks different and the downport was never > > finished. > > FWIW, this is a review request for the 8u backport :) > > Thanks, > Severin > > > Best regards, > > Goetz. > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Severin Gehwolf <sgehw...@redhat.com> > > > Sent: Dienstag, 2. Oktober 2018 13:09 > > > To: Lindenmaier, Goetz <goetz.lindenma...@sap.com>; Erik Joelsson > > > <erik.joels...@oracle.com>; hotspot-dev <hotspot- > > > d...@openjdk.java.net>; ppc-aix-port-dev <ppc-aix-port- > > > d...@openjdk.java.net>; build-dev <build-dev@openjdk.java.net> > > > Subject: Re: [PING] [8u] RFR: 8073139: PPC64: User-visible arch directory > and > > > os.arch value on ppc64le cause issues with Java tooling > > > > > > Hi Goetz, > > > > > > On Tue, 2018-10-02 at 10:40 +0000, Lindenmaier, Goetz wrote: > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > I'm fine with this. > > > > > > Thanks for the review! > > > > > > > If I remember correctly, this was proposed before but > > > > never pushed in the end. > > > > > > Interesting. > > > > > > > Did you test this on ppc64 be, too? > > > > > > I have not. Will do so, though. > > > > > > Thanks, > > > Severin > > > > > > > Best regards, > > > > Goetz. > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > > From: ppc-aix-port-dev <ppc-aix-port-dev- > boun...@openjdk.java.net> > > > > > > On > > > > > Behalf Of Severin Gehwolf > > > > > Sent: Dienstag, 2. Oktober 2018 12:34 > > > > > To: Erik Joelsson <erik.joels...@oracle.com>; hotspot-dev <hotspot- > > > > > d...@openjdk.java.net>; ppc-aix-port-dev <ppc-aix-port- > > > > > d...@openjdk.java.net>; build-dev <build-dev@openjdk.java.net> > > > > > Subject: Re: [PING] [8u] RFR: 8073139: PPC64: User-visible arch > directory > > > > > > and > > > > > os.arch value on ppc64le cause issues with Java tooling > > > > > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > > > Pinging PPC porters. Does this look reasonable to you? > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > Severin > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, 2018-09-28 at 08:56 -0700, Erik Joelsson wrote: > > > > > > Build changes look ok to me. > > > > > > > > > > > > /Erik > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 2018-09-26 04:26, Severin Gehwolf wrote: > > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Could I please get reviews for this JDK 8 backport which fixes > some > > > > > > > tooling issues on Linux ppc64le? Prior this patch, a ppc64le build > > > > > > > would report as "ppc64" via os.arch system property which breaks > > > > > > > tooling such as maven in as much as if some dependency needs > > > > > > native > > > > > > > libraries it would download BE binaries where it actually should > > > > > > > download LE binaries. Example for os.arch/java.library.path: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > pre: > > > > > > > $ ./jdk8-pre-ppc64le/bin/java TestProperty > > > > > > > java.library.path = > > > > > > > > > > /usr/java/packages/lib/ppc64:/usr/lib64:/lib64:/lib:/usr/lib > > > > > > > os.arch = ppc64 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > post: > > > > > > > $ ./jdk8-post-ppc64le/bin/java TestProperty > > > > > > > java.library.path = > > > > > > > > > > /usr/java/packages/lib/ppc64le:/usr/lib64:/lib64:/lib:/usr/lib > > > > > > > os.arch = ppc64le > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8073139 > > > > > > > webrevs: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~sgehwolf/webrevs/JDK- > > > > > > > > > > 8073139/jdk8/01/ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Including build-dev for build changes. hotspot-dev and ppc-aix- > port- > > > > > > dev > > > > > > > for JDK/hotspot changes. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This backport should only have minor differences to the changes > in > > > > > > JDK > > > > > > > 11. We have been using similar patches in Fedora for months. > > > > > > Thoughts? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > > Severin > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
