Hello Please check the updated webrev - http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~vkempik/8250876/webrev.02/ Thanks, Vladimir
> 10 авг. 2020 г., в 16:11, Erik Joelsson <erik.joels...@oracle.com> написал(а): > > On 2020-08-10 03:47, Vladimir Kempik wrote: >> Hello >> >> Renamed the bug to "Fix issues with cross-compile on macos" >> >> Please check updated webrev: >> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~vkempik/8250876/webrev.01/ >> >> Adlc is fine with cross-compiling now. >> > While not strictly needed for ADLC, I would like to see BUILD_CC getting the > same treatment here for consistency. > > /Erik > >> Regards, Vladimir >>> 10 авг. 2020 г., в 12:52, Magnus Ihse Bursie >>> <magnus.ihse.bur...@oracle.com> написал(а): >>> >>> So, basically, what this patch is about is not so much "preparation for >>> aarch64" as "allow cross-compile on macos"? If I understand you correctly, >>> maybe you should rename the bug? >>> >>> /Magnus >>> >>> On 2020-08-04 16:09, Erik Joelsson wrote: >>>> That's a good find! You are correct in that we haven't cross compiled in >>>> any direction involving Macosx before. >>>> >>>> The preferred patch would be a bit more elaborate than that. Ideally we >>>> need better control over the toolchain type of the BUILD_* compiler >>>> settings. For now, I think just forcing clang/clang++ if BUILD_OS is >>>> macosx is good enough. >>>> >>>> /Erik >>>> >>>> On 2020-08-04 07:02, Bernhard Urban-Forster wrote: >>>>> Good observation David, the change in adlc is just fixing a symptom. The >>>>> difference to a regular macOS build is that technically, despite running >>>>> on the same machine, it's actually cross compiling due to Rosetta being >>>>> the --build=x86_64 system. >>>>> >>>>> Being a cross-compile, we therefore hit this case: >>>>> https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/blob/b0ceab23dd4176329cbf3a95f21e8e9ac2d8723f/make/autoconf/toolchain.m4#L905-L921 >>>>> >>>>> And thus infers `/usr/bin/CC` for CXX. >>>>> >>>>> I guess cross compiling hasn't been a thing on macOS yet. I tried the >>>>> following and it passes the adlc build: >>>>> >>>>> --- a/make/autoconf/toolchain.m4 >>>>> +++ b/make/autoconf/toolchain.m4 >>>>> @@ -917,7 +917,7 @@ AC_DEFUN_ONCE([TOOLCHAIN_SETUP_BUILD_COMPILERS], >>>>> # find the build compilers in the tools dir, if needed. >>>>> UTIL_REQUIRE_PROGS(BUILD_CC, [cl cc gcc]) >>>>> UTIL_FIXUP_EXECUTABLE(BUILD_CC) >>>>> - UTIL_REQUIRE_PROGS(BUILD_CXX, [cl CC g++]) >>>>> + UTIL_REQUIRE_PROGS(BUILD_CXX, [clang++ cl CC g++]) >>>>> UTIL_FIXUP_EXECUTABLE(BUILD_CXX) >>>>> UTIL_PATH_PROGS(BUILD_NM, nm gcc-nm) >>>>> UTIL_FIXUP_EXECUTABLE(BUILD_NM) >>>>> >>>>> Although I'm not sure about its cleanliness :-) >>>>> >>>>> -Bernhard >>>>> >>>>> ________________________________________ >>>>> From: build-dev <build-dev-r...@openjdk.java.net> on behalf of David >>>>> Holmes <david.hol...@oracle.com> >>>>> Sent: Tuesday, August 4, 2020 00:46 >>>>> To: Erik Joelsson; Vladimir Kempik; build-dev >>>>> Cc: Anton Kozlov; Alexander Ioffe; Andrew Brygin; Andrey Petushkov >>>>> Subject: Re: RFR: 8250876: Build system preparation to macos on aarch64 >>>>> >>>>> On 3/08/2020 10:57 pm, Erik Joelsson wrote: >>>>>> Hello Vladimir, >>>>>> >>>>>> These changes look innocent enough to me. They aren't actually adding >>>>>> macosx-aarch64 support, they are just removing two minor (and more >>>>>> likely OS version related) hurdles from the build. You still have to >>>>>> provide the actual configuration on the configure command line as is >>>>>> shown in your example. Before we can call build system support, we would >>>>>> need configure to automatically setup those flags and add a separate >>>>>> parameter for the JNF framework. So, given that, I don't think this >>>>>> change warrants a JEP in itself. >>>>> Of course this change doesn't warrant a JEP in itself :) My point is >>>>> that until we have a JEP for the platform that is being targeted then we >>>>> shouldn't be making changes to provide support for that platform. >>>>> >>>>> That said I didn't actually look at the changes but focused on the >>>>> larger stated aim, so apologies for that. >>>>> >>>>> The actual changes here are small and not obviously related to >>>>> supporting macOS-Aarch64. But I'm unclear on this change as it affects >>>>> all macOS builds: >>>>> >>>>> 42 else ifeq ($(call isBuildOs, macosx), true) >>>>> 43 ADLC_LDFLAGS := -lc++ >>>>> >>>>> if this was fixing a bug as indicated, why do we not see this bug in >>>>> regular builds? >>>>> >>>>> Thanks, >>>>> David >>>>> ----- >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> My only complaint is that you revert jib-profiles.js. That file is only >>>>>> used internally at Oracle. If/when we need it to support macosx-aarch64, >>>>>> we will provide those changes. >>>>>> >>>>>> I must say I'm happy to see you managed to get a working build >>>>>> configuration with just this though! >>>>>> >>>>>> /Erik >>>>>> >>>>>> On 2020-08-01 00:24, Vladimir Kempik wrote: >>>>>>> Hello >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Please review this change for JDK-8250876 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> This changeset adds support for macos/aarch64 into build system. >>>>>>> It will allow to crosscompile for macos/aarch64 using intel mac as well. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> This changeset does NOT address some arm specific issues in the macos >>>>>>> related code, we plan to do that in s separate commit. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> An example of configure to cross-compile for macos/arm64: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> --with-boot-jdk=/path/to/java/ >>>>>>> --with-build-jdk=/path/to/same/java/as/compiled >>>>>>> --disable-warnings-as-errors --with-jvm-variants=zero >>>>>>> --openjdk-target=aarch64-apple-darwin --with-extra-cflags='-arch >>>>>>> arm64' --with-extra-ldflags='-arch arm64 >>>>>>> -F/Path/To/Folder/Containing/JNF_framework/' >>>>>>> —with-extra-cxxflags='-arch arm64’ >>>>>>> >>>>>>> JNF.framework is missing arm64 part as of next macos release, but >>>>>>> Apple has opensourced it. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Fix to adlc were needed due to it using symbols from stdc++ and not >>>>>>> linking to it, so it fails when doing make images. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The webrev: >>>>>>> https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http:%2F%2Fcr.openjdk.java.net%2F~vkempik%2F8250876%2Fwebrev.00%2F&data=02%7C01%7Cbeurba%40microsoft.com%7C0c8d58d5eb9144e8717f08d837ff3736%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637320916565796801&sdata=HpXJmHXbuawTdExWESK9ssesYTuPTj7N6inXjaHfVaM%3D&reserved=0 >>>>>>> The bug: >>>>>>> https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fbugs.openjdk.java.net%2Fbrowse%2FJDK-8250876&data=02%7C01%7Cbeurba%40microsoft.com%7C0c8d58d5eb9144e8717f08d837ff3736%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637320916565796801&sdata=9z2Nw8d0pa5huxUKOYorMOVy6SBo7o%2FhDT1EmgOhxQ8%3D&reserved=0 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Testing: jdk/submit. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thanks, Vladimir. >>
