I'd like to go even further: OpenJDK has a make/autoconf/platform.m4 file which specifies the possible values for CPU_ARCH etc. This allows to uniquely define OPENJDK_BUILD_CPU_ARCH and OPENJDK_TARGET_CPU_ARCH.
If we did something similar (in build.gradle), we would be able to be more consistent in build.gradle itself and in the platform-specific gradle files. Currently, this logic is spread over many places. - Johan On Mon, Apr 19, 2021 at 10:23 PM Philip Race <philip.r...@oracle.com> wrote: > FWIW I think on the JDK side folks are converging on aarch64 > And also using that name as the "CPU" field in JBS (the alternative > there being 'arm'). > I'd find it easier if it was consistent across all these places. > > -phil > > On 4/19/21 1:06 PM, Johan Vos wrote: > > Recently, we introduced the option (or are introducing the options) to > > build OpenJFX for 64-bit ARM CPU's on Mac, Windows and Linux. > > However, those 3 platforms use different approaches to deal with this > > arch-specific options. > > Since the PR's for windows and linux are currently still open, it might > be > > a good opportunity to decide on a standard approach for dealing with > > architecture names in both the build.gradle as well as the > > platform-specific gradle files. > > > > We have to take into account that the different external libraries we > > include have their own wishes for accepting CPU architecture info, so > even > > if we standardize internally on a specific name, conversions will still > be > > needed when invoking e.g. building media libraries. > > > > See https://github.com/openjdk/jfx/pull/439 for the windows general > build > > PR and https://github.com/openjdk/jfx/pull/467 for the Linux media PR. > > > > I am personally not really happy myself with how I deal with it in PR > #467, > > as I would like to have a single "TARGET_ARCH" parameter that specifies > the > > target architecture (also in case we are cross-compiling), rather than > > doing specific checks on different locations -- but that require a bigger > > refactory and I'd like to hear more opinions before doing that. > > > > I am very open to naming conventions (e.g. arm64 or aarch64), but I can > > imagine different people have different opinions. > > > > - Johan > >
