> On Apr 4, 2017, at 11:12 AM, mark.reinh...@oracle.com wrote: > > 2017/4/4 1:04:22 -0700, magnus.ihse.bur...@oracle.com: >> On 2017-04-03 23:50, Mandy Chung wrote: >>> ... >>> >>> JDK 8 JDK 9 >>> ----- ----- >>> OS_NAME Linux linux >>> SunOS solaris >>> Darwin macos >>> Windows windows >>> >>> OS_ARCH i386,x86 x86 >>> i586,amd64,x86_64 amd64 >>> sparcv9 sparcv9 >>> arm arm32 >>> aarch64 arm64 >> >> If we are making changes to the original proposal from JDK-8175819, then >> I just want to add my few cents: >> >> Why change from the well-established "aarch64" to the virtually unused >> "arm64"? As far as I know, using the name "arm64" for the aarch64 >> platform is something that has only been done in the (recently opened) >> closed Oracle port. This change, however, proposes to change the value >> in the release file even for the open aarch64 port, which has always >> been known by that name. > > The trouble here is that "arm64" and "aarch64" are effectively synonyms > for the ISA, but in the JDK we've wound up using them as the names of > two different ports.
Well sort of … We are only using arm64 as a configure option to enable building the unified ARM32/64 port and a label in Jira to identify which port a bug or RFE is related to. Both 64-bit ARM ports have been using aarch64 for the os.name property since day one and I think we should stick to this name in the release file to avoid any confusion. Bob. > > A JMOD file built for the 64-bit ARM architecture will (one hopes) run > equally well on either port. Which name should we use in JMOD files, > "arm64" or "aarch64"? My sense is that "arm64" is more immediately > understood by developers at large even if "aarch64" is more correct > in the eyes of ARM Holdings plc, but I could be wrong. > > For what it's worth, the Linux distros aren't consistent: Debian-based > distros use "arm64", while Red Hat / Fedora seem to prefer "aarch64". > > - Mark
