On Mon, 21 Sep 2020 08:15:20 GMT, Bernhard Urban-Forster <bur...@openjdk.org> wrote:
>> Hey @erikj79, thank you so much for giving it a try! >> >>> Our linux-aarch64 build fails with this: >>> cc: error: unrecognized command line option '-std=c++14' >>> when compiling >>> build/linux-aarch64/buildjdk/hotspot/variant-server/libjvm/objs/precompiled/precompiled.hpp.gch >> >> Hmm, that's interesting. What environment is that exactly? What `configure` >> line are you using there? We have tested on >> such a system: $ cat /etc/issue >> Ubuntu 19.10 \n \l >> $ bash configure --with-boot-jdk=/home/beurba/work/jdk-16+13 --with-jtreg >> $ make clean CONF=linux-aarch64-server-release >> $ make images JOBS=255 LOG=info CONF=linux-aarch64-server-release >> $ ./build/linux-aarch64-server-release/images/jdk/bin/java >> -XshowSettings:properties -version 2>&1 | grep aarch64 >> java.home = >> /home/beurba/work/jdk/build/linux-aarch64-server-release/images/jdk >> os.arch = aarch64 >> sun.boot.library.path = >> /home/beurba/work/jdk/build/linux-aarch64-server-release/images/jdk/lib >> -------------------------------------------------------- >>> I'm trying to configure a windows-aarch64 build, but it fails on fixpath. >>> Is this something you are also experiencing, >>> and if so, how are you addressing it? >> >> Yes. As far as I understand, the problem is that `fixpath.exe` isn't built >> properly when doing cross-compiling on >> Windows targets (as it hasn't been a thing so far). We use a workaround >> internally >> https://gist.github.com/lewurm/c099a4b5fcd8a182510cbdeebcb41f77 , but a >> proper solution is under discussion on >> build-dev: >> https://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/build-dev/2020-July/027872.html > >> _Mailing list message from [Andrew Haley](mailto:a...@redhat.com) on >> [build-dev](mailto:build-dev@openjdk.java.net):_ >> >> On 18/09/2020 11:14, Monica Beckwith wrote: >> >> > This is a continuation of >> > https://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/aarch64-port-dev/2020-August/009566.html >> >> The diffs in assembler_aarch64.cpp are mostly spurious. Please try this. > > > Thank you Andrew. Is the goal to reduce the patch diff in > `assembler_aarch64.cpp`? If so, we need to get rid of the > retry in your patch to avoid additional calls to `random`, e.g. something > like this (the diff for the generated part > would look indeed nicer with that: > https://gist.github.com/lewurm/2e7b0e00447696c75e00febb83034ba1 ): > --- a/src/hotspot/cpu/aarch64/aarch64-asmtest.py > +++ b/src/hotspot/cpu/aarch64/aarch64-asmtest.py > @@ -13,6 +13,8 @@ class Register(Operand): > > def generate(self): > self.number = random.randint(0, 30) > + if self.number == 18: > + self.number = 17 > return self > > def astr(self, prefix): > @@ -37,6 +39,8 @@ class GeneralRegisterOrZr(Register): > > def generate(self): > self.number = random.randint(0, 31) > + if self.number == 18: > + self.number = 16 > return self > > def astr(self, prefix = ""): > @@ -54,6 +58,8 @@ class GeneralRegisterOrZr(Register): > class GeneralRegisterOrSp(Register): > def generate(self): > self.number = random.randint(0, 31) > + if self.number == 18: > + self.number = 15 > return self > > def astr(self, prefix = ""): > @@ -1331,7 +1337,7 @@ generate(SpecialCases, [["ccmn", "__ ccmn(zr, zr, 3u, > Assembler::LE);", > ["st1w", "__ sve_st1w(z0, __ S, p1, Address(r0, > 7));", "st1w\t{z0.s}, p1, [x0, #7, MUL VL]"], > ["st1b", "__ sve_st1b(z0, __ B, p2, Address(sp, > r1));", "st1b\t{z0.b}, p2, [sp, x1]"], > ["st1h", "__ sve_st1h(z0, __ H, p3, Address(sp, > r8));", "st1h\t{z0.h}, p3, [sp, x8, LSL #1]"], > - ["st1d", "__ sve_st1d(z0, __ D, p4, Address(r0, > r18));", "st1d\t{z0.d}, p4, [x0, x18, LSL #3]"], > + ["st1d", "__ sve_st1d(z0, __ D, p4, Address(r0, > r17));", "st1d\t{z0.d}, p4, [x0, x17, > LSL #3]"], > ["ldr", "__ sve_ldr(z0, Address(sp));", > "ldr\tz0, [sp]"], > ["ldr", "__ sve_ldr(z31, Address(sp, -256));", > "ldr\tz31, [sp, #-256, MUL VL]"], > ["str", "__ sve_str(z8, Address(r8, 255));", > "str\tz8, [x8, #255, MUL VL]"], > _Mailing list message from [Andrew Haley](mailto:a...@redhat.com) on > [build-dev](mailto:build-dev@openjdk.java.net):_ > > On 21/09/2020 09:18, Bernhard Urban-Forster wrote: > > > Thank you Andrew. Is the goal to reduce the patch diff in > > `assembler_aarch64.cpp`? If so, we need to get rid of the > > retry in your patch to avoid additional calls to `random`, e.g. something > > like this (the diff for the generated part > > would look indeed nicer with that: > > https://gist.github.com/lewurm/2e7b0e00447696c75e00febb83034ba1 ): > > [...] > > Yes, better. Thanks. Great, I've updated the PR. Thank you! ------------- PR: https://git.openjdk.java.net/jdk/pull/212
