On Mon, 21 Sep 2020 08:15:20 GMT, Bernhard Urban-Forster
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:
> >
