Re: [RFR]: 8187004: No valid toolchains defined for BSD

[dalibor topic]

On 06.09.2017 06:39, Greg Lewis wrote:

This is accurate.  We haven't attempted to pass the JCK for any port more
recent than Java 5 IIRC.  At that point we did get a port that had passed,
but that required a lot of work which was sponsored at the time by the
FreeBSD Foundation.  I'm not aware of anyone attempting it since.


[snip]


One of the conditions for getting a port into JDK mainline has been that
it should actually pass the JCK for the current version. I think that's
a low enough bar that should remain in place for JDK 9 and beyond.


FWIW, I agree that is a completely reasonable bar to meet.  Unfortunately
with the lack of time of the people involved it has been difficult to meet
this.  I expect this will again require a funded effort to again have
someone be able to devote enough time to actually meet this bar.  The
points below only serve to reinforce that.  In "funded effort" I'm
including making it part of somebodies paid job to get the port passing
the JCK and ensure it continues to do so as needed.


Thanks, Greg. I hope that you'll be able to either find an organization 
willing to sponsor/fund the effort or suitable volunteers, or, ideally, 
both.


cheers,
dalibor topic

--
 Dalibor Topic | Principal Product Manager
Phone: +494089091214  | Mobile: +491737185961


ORACLE Deutschland B.V. & Co. KG | Kühnehöfe 5 | 22761 Hamburg

ORACLE Deutschland B.V. & Co. KG
Hauptverwaltung: Riesstr. 25, D-80992 München
Registergericht: Amtsgericht München, HRA 95603

Komplementärin: ORACLE Deutschland Verwaltung B.V.
Hertogswetering 163/167, 3543 AS Utrecht, Niederlande
Handelsregister der Handelskammer Midden-Niederlande, Nr. 30143697
Geschäftsführer: Alexander van der Ven, Jan Schultheiss, Val Maher

 Oracle is committed to developing
practices and products that help protect the environment

Re: [RFR]: 8187004: No valid toolchains defined for BSD

[Greg Lewis]

On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 12:14:10PM +0200, dalibor topic wrote:
> (CC:ing bsd-port-dev, where this conversation should have moved to a 
> while ago ...)
> 
> On 31.08.2017 10:53, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
> > There is an active community maintaining OpenJDK on BSD. The problem is
> > just that they are doing it downstream instead of working together with
> > upstream due to lack of communication. I think that is a problem that can
> > be fixed though.
> >
> > I will try to get these people join the upstream mailing list.
> 
> As far as I know, most of the people who actively maintain the BSD ports 
> in various BSD distributions are already Committers on the BSD port Project:
> 
> Per http://openjdk.java.net/census#bsd-port
> 
> Greg Lewis (Project Lead, FreeBSD) & Jung-uk Kim (FreeBSD)
> Christos Zoulas (NetBSD)
> Kurt Miller (OpenBSD)
> 
> The FreeBSD Foundation is an OCTLA signatory: 
> http://openjdk.java.net/groups/conformance/JckAccess/jck-access.html
> 
> Unfortunately, no one has produced a build of the OpenJDK BSD port that 
> passes the JCK yet, as far as I know.

This is accurate.  We haven't attempted to pass the JCK for any port more
recent than Java 5 IIRC.  At that point we did get a port that had passed,
but that required a lot of work which was sponsored at the time by the
FreeBSD Foundation.  I'm not aware of anyone attempting it since.

> The challenge in the past has been that the time the individual BSD Port 
> developers have generously been able to spend on keeping the BSD port up 
> and running (Greg just updated the JDK 8 forest with latest changes, 
> while Kurt fixed a set of compilation issues this month - thanks!) [0] 
> was not sufficient to simultaneously let them make enough progress on 
> integrating their port into mainline JDK. Maybe the BSD porters are 
> interested in having more individuals help with the various tasks around 
> that - but it's also worth keeping in mind that the set of individuals 
> who speak up wanting to help out with the port on bsd-port-dev is less 
> than a handful per year.
> 
> One of the conditions for getting a port into JDK mainline has been that 
> it should actually pass the JCK for the current version. I think that's 
> a low enough bar that should remain in place for JDK 9 and beyond.

FWIW, I agree that is a completely reasonable bar to meet.  Unfortunately
with the lack of time of the people involved it has been difficult to meet
this.  I expect this will again require a funded effort to again have
someone be able to devote enough time to actually meet this bar.  The
points below only serve to reinforce that.  In "funded effort" I'm
including making it part of somebodies paid job to get the port passing
the JCK and ensure it continues to do so as needed.

That said, if there are people with lots of time to volunteer to do this
I'd love to hear from you.  Until then, we're happy to accept patches into
the bsd-port repo from registered contributors.

> Here's a slightly updated version of what I wrote about getting BSD 
> ports into mainline back in 2014 as part of a conversation with Greg 
> about it:
> 
> In general, ports should come in through the 'next release' project, 
> i.e. JDK9/10 currently, as that is where most of the development 
> happens, and so that's the best place to review and integrate the 
> changes going forward. Well, JDK 10, really, at this stage of JDK 9 
> development.
> 
> * At this point in time, I'd be very pessimistic about adding new ports 
> further back to the JDK 8 Updates Project or earlier, as they are more 
> focused on bug fixes and stability, rather than adding features.
> 
> * For a port to get into mainline, it needs to have a JEP, and the JEP 
> needs to be funded. Basically, someone needs to sign up to do all the 
> necessary work.
> 
> See http://openjdk.java.net/jeps/175 for the JEP for the PowerPC64 
> AIX/Linux port JEP, for an example, of what a JEP for a port should look 
> like. See http://openjdk.java.net/jeps/1 for details,
> and http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~mr/jep/jep-2.0-02.html for the revision 
> of the JEP process.
> 
> * All source code changes need to be reviewed by the respective 
> reviewers for mainline, as usual. This typically implies for a port's 
> integration that it's a non-trivial effort on the side of Reviewers from 
> Oracle and other port maintainers to ensure that changes proposed for 
> review actually get timely reviews. Depending on how much there is to 
> review, you'd want to get a plan in place that lets everyone plan their 
> involvement in the review process accordingly, rather than just posting 
> a bunch of patches for review on several mailing lists and hoping for 
> the best.
> 
> * Each port is slightly different - some touch only a few files, others 
> bring in new subsystems for graphics, native code, programming 
> languages, CPUs, core libraries, etc.
> 
> So while in some cases integrating a port can be rather straightforward, 
> because it to

Re: [RFR]: 8187004: No valid toolchains defined for BSD

[dalibor topic]

(CC:ing bsd-port-dev, where this conversation should have moved to a 
while ago ...)


On 31.08.2017 10:53, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:

There is an active community maintaining OpenJDK on BSD. The problem is
just that they are doing it downstream instead of working together with
upstream due to lack of communication. I think that is a problem that can
be fixed though.

I will try to get these people join the upstream mailing list.


As far as I know, most of the people who actively maintain the BSD ports 
in various BSD distributions are already Committers on the BSD port Project:


Per http://openjdk.java.net/census#bsd-port

Greg Lewis (Project Lead, FreeBSD) & Jung-uk Kim (FreeBSD)
Christos Zoulas (NetBSD)
Kurt Miller (OpenBSD)

The FreeBSD Foundation is an OCTLA signatory: 
http://openjdk.java.net/groups/conformance/JckAccess/jck-access.html


Unfortunately, no one has produced a build of the OpenJDK BSD port that 
passes the JCK yet, as far as I know.


The challenge in the past has been that the time the individual BSD Port 
developers have generously been able to spend on keeping the BSD port up 
and running (Greg just updated the JDK 8 forest with latest changes, 
while Kurt fixed a set of compilation issues this month - thanks!) [0] 
was not sufficient to simultaneously let them make enough progress on 
integrating their port into mainline JDK. Maybe the BSD porters are 
interested in having more individuals help with the various tasks around 
that - but it's also worth keeping in mind that the set of individuals 
who speak up wanting to help out with the port on bsd-port-dev is less 
than a handful per year.


One of the conditions for getting a port into JDK mainline has been that 
it should actually pass the JCK for the current version. I think that's 
a low enough bar that should remain in place for JDK 9 and beyond.


Here's a slightly updated version of what I wrote about getting BSD 
ports into mainline back in 2014 as part of a conversation with Greg 
about it:


In general, ports should come in through the 'next release' project, 
i.e. JDK9/10 currently, as that is where most of the development 
happens, and so that's the best place to review and integrate the 
changes going forward. Well, JDK 10, really, at this stage of JDK 9 
development.


* At this point in time, I'd be very pessimistic about adding new ports 
further back to the JDK 8 Updates Project or earlier, as they are more 
focused on bug fixes and stability, rather than adding features.


* For a port to get into mainline, it needs to have a JEP, and the JEP 
needs to be funded. Basically, someone needs to sign up to do all the 
necessary work.


See http://openjdk.java.net/jeps/175 for the JEP for the PowerPC64 
AIX/Linux port JEP, for an example, of what a JEP for a port should look 
like. See http://openjdk.java.net/jeps/1 for details,
and http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~mr/jep/jep-2.0-02.html for the revision 
of the JEP process.


* All source code changes need to be reviewed by the respective 
reviewers for mainline, as usual. This typically implies for a port's 
integration that it's a non-trivial effort on the side of Reviewers from 
Oracle and other port maintainers to ensure that changes proposed for 
review actually get timely reviews. Depending on how much there is to 
review, you'd want to get a plan in place that lets everyone plan their 
involvement in the review process accordingly, rather than just posting 
a bunch of patches for review on several mailing lists and hoping for 
the best.


* Each port is slightly different - some touch only a few files, others 
bring in new subsystems for graphics, native code, programming 
languages, CPUs, core libraries, etc.


So while in some cases integrating a port can be rather straightforward, 
because it touches only a limited set of files, in other cases it can be 
a complicated undertaking that requires several synchronization points, 
planning, and efficient execution from many parties to pull it off in 
time for a JDK release feature freeze. I.e. if you want to get a new 
port into mainline you'd need to get started early in a JDK release cycle.


* Testing is very important - a port should not introduce regressions, 
for example. It should also pass the JCK for the current release. The 
JDK mainline has rather strict rules about reviews, and processes to 
follow, which makes it an inconvenient place to finish off an unfinished 
port - that's what the porting projects are for.


* Once a port get into the mainline JDK project, it's expected to be 
kept up to date by its maintainers - which  means keeping up with the 
regular stream of changes - for example, the integration of Jigsaw into 
JDK 9 resulted in some build system changes (because of modules), and it 
would be up to each port's maintainers to make sure that they keep their 
port in sync in tree.


cheers,
dalibor topic

[0] 
http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/bsd-port-dev/2017-August/thread.html

Re: [RFR]: 8187004: No valid toolchains defined for BSD

[John Paul Adrian Glaubitz]

On 08/31/2017 09:21 AM, David Holmes wrote:

Those were very minor patches of two quite distinct kinds:

1. Make zero work on platform Z

This is something we can easily accommodate, and it generally
doesn't take much effort or disturb other platforms.


Well, Zero is currently not maintained, is it?


2. Make the linux-sparc port work again

This is somewhat more significant and does require community support
as otherwise this is an "orphaned" port. The fact it already exists
and was starting to bit rot means the acceptance bar is somewhat lower.


I agree.


But there is still a question mark over longer term commitment from the
community for supporting this port.


You mean, there is no chance that Oracle is going to have their engineers
work on Oracle's OpenJDK so it will work on Oracle Linux running on Oracle
SPARC?

I know I am very cynical, but I have very hard problems to believe that
the Linux SPARC port of OpenJDK is going to be irrelevant in the near
future for Oracle when I see how much they are ramping up Linux support
on SPARC. I am following the sparclinux kernel mailing list and roughly
80% of the patches of the past months for Linux SPARC came from Oracle
folk.


Patric told me on hotspot-dev that Oracle has no problems accepting these
patches if they are maintained and tested by the community.


A full BSD port, not just Zero on BSD, requires a non-trivial level of
commitment from the community in terms of maintaining it etc, before it
can come into mainline. That is why we have the bsd-port project - to
establish that community and commitment. But AFAICS, and from what was
said when Magnus proposed this, that community is not active.


There is an active community maintaining OpenJDK on BSD. The problem is
just that they are doing it downstream instead of working together with
upstream due to lack of communication. I think that is a problem that can
be fixed though.

I will try to get these people join the upstream mailing list.

Adrian

--
 .''`.  John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
: :' :  Debian Developer - glaub...@debian.org
`. `'   Freie Universitaet Berlin - glaub...@physik.fu-berlin.de
  `-GPG: 62FF 8A75 84E0 2956 9546  0006 7426 3B37 F5B5 F913

Re: [RFR]: 8187004: No valid toolchains defined for BSD

[David Holmes]

On 31/08/2017 5:40 PM, Thomas Stüfe wrote:
On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 9:21 AM, David Holmes > wrote:


On 31/08/2017 5:08 PM, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:

On 08/31/2017 08:58 AM, Magnus Ihse Bursie wrote:

BSD is buildable for jdk9 in the separate, hardly-maintained
bsd-port only. :-(


That's what I guess as well after seeing that the "bsd"
directories within
the "jdk" structure are missing in the mainline tree. Then I
checked what
NetBSD is using as upstream and saw the reference bsd-port.

I posted a set of patches for jdk9 mainline for building
jdk9 on BSD, that was
rejected. :( They ended up in the bsd-port, but this has not
been pushed upstream
to the mainline, and the bsd port is only sporadically
updated from mainline.


I think it won't hurt anyone if those patches are pushed
mainline. It seems that
most of the stuff lives inside its own directories, doesn't it?
If so, I don't
see any risk of breakage.

Since those changes are either a) general cleanups that all
platforms should
benefit from, or b) no-risk bsd-only changes, I'd really
like to see them go into
the mainline build system.


I agree. I'm all for merging them. If someone has invested so
much work into
the port, it shouldn't just go to bitrot in bsd-port. It should
be merged
into the mainline tree.

But for that to happen, we apparently need to change some
policy about
accepting code for platforms not tested by Oracle. :-(


I don't see why that should be necessary. I have sent in patches
for linux-sparc
and linux-zero in the past weeks and they were merged without a
hitch.


Those were very minor patches of two quite distinct kinds:

1. Make zero work on platform Z

This is something we can easily accommodate, and it generally
doesn't take much effort or disturb other platforms.

2. Make the linux-sparc port work again

This is somewhat more significant and does require community support
as otherwise this is an "orphaned" port. The fact it already exists
and was starting to bit rot means the acceptance bar is somewhat
lower. But there is still a question mark over longer term
commitment from the community for supporting this port.

Patric told me on hotspot-dev that Oracle has no problems
accepting these
patches if they are maintained and tested by the community.


A full BSD port, not just Zero on BSD, requires a non-trivial level
of commitment from the community in terms of maintaining it etc,
before it can come into mainline. That is why we have the bsd-port
project - to establish that community and commitment. But AFAICS,
and from what was said when Magnus proposed this, that community is
not active.

So unless something significant has changed with regards to the
bsd-port project and its supporting community, a full BSD port in
mainline seems unlikely.


FWIW, I would love a first class BSD port. I think BSD is a valuable 
platform to have.


The fact that different people at different times independently from 
each other try to make this work, and that there seems to be an active 
community of OpenJDK porters for BSD, seems to indicate there is enough 
interest to keep this going. And then, maybe I am naive, but we are not 
talking about new CPUs or a new GC, just another Posix compliant OS very 
similar to the existing OSX. Would this really be so much effort?


It isn't a question of initial effort.



But this should be discussed on porters-...@openjdk.java.net
 so that the porters group can
have its say.


Unfortunately, porters-dev is a ghost town. What about bsd-dev?


AFAIK the porters group should be the ones discussing this in general.

David


Cheers, Thomas

Cheers,
David
-


The changes, btw, look good.


Thanks.

Btw, I was chatting about OpenJDK on BSD yesterday on #netbsd in IRC
and I have learned that there are also several porters actively
working on OpenJDK on BSD. I will contact those guys and get them
to join build-dev@ and hotspot-dev@.

There are definitely enough qualified and motivated developers who
want to work on OpenJDK for the platforms Oracle doesn't officially
support.

Adrian

Re: [RFR]: 8187004: No valid toolchains defined for BSD

[Thomas Stüfe]

On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 9:21 AM, David Holmes 
wrote:

> On 31/08/2017 5:08 PM, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
>
>> On 08/31/2017 08:58 AM, Magnus Ihse Bursie wrote:
>>
>>> BSD is buildable for jdk9 in the separate, hardly-maintained bsd-port
>>> only. :-(
>>>
>>
>> That's what I guess as well after seeing that the "bsd" directories within
>> the "jdk" structure are missing in the mainline tree. Then I checked what
>> NetBSD is using as upstream and saw the reference bsd-port.
>>
>> I posted a set of patches for jdk9 mainline for building jdk9 on BSD,
>>> that was
>>> rejected. :( They ended up in the bsd-port, but this has not been pushed
>>> upstream
>>> to the mainline, and the bsd port is only sporadically updated from
>>> mainline.
>>>
>>
>> I think it won't hurt anyone if those patches are pushed mainline. It
>> seems that
>> most of the stuff lives inside its own directories, doesn't it? If so, I
>> don't
>> see any risk of breakage.
>>
>> Since those changes are either a) general cleanups that all platforms
>>> should
>>> benefit from, or b) no-risk bsd-only changes, I'd really like to see
>>> them go into
>>> the mainline build system.
>>>
>>
>> I agree. I'm all for merging them. If someone has invested so much work
>> into
>> the port, it shouldn't just go to bitrot in bsd-port. It should be merged
>> into the mainline tree.
>>
>> But for that to happen, we apparently need to change some policy about
>>> accepting code for platforms not tested by Oracle. :-(
>>>
>>
>> I don't see why that should be necessary. I have sent in patches for
>> linux-sparc
>> and linux-zero in the past weeks and they were merged without a hitch.
>>
>
> Those were very minor patches of two quite distinct kinds:
>
> 1. Make zero work on platform Z
>
> This is something we can easily accommodate, and it generally doesn't take
> much effort or disturb other platforms.
>
> 2. Make the linux-sparc port work again
>
> This is somewhat more significant and does require community support as
> otherwise this is an "orphaned" port. The fact it already exists and was
> starting to bit rot means the acceptance bar is somewhat lower. But there
> is still a question mark over longer term commitment from the community for
> supporting this port.
>
> Patric told me on hotspot-dev that Oracle has no problems accepting these
>> patches if they are maintained and tested by the community.
>>
>
> A full BSD port, not just Zero on BSD, requires a non-trivial level of
> commitment from the community in terms of maintaining it etc, before it can
> come into mainline. That is why we have the bsd-port project - to establish
> that community and commitment. But AFAICS, and from what was said when
> Magnus proposed this, that community is not active.
>
> So unless something significant has changed with regards to the bsd-port
> project and its supporting community, a full BSD port in mainline seems
> unlikely.
>
>
FWIW, I would love a first class BSD port. I think BSD is a valuable
platform to have.

The fact that different people at different times independently from each
other try to make this work, and that there seems to be an active community
of OpenJDK porters for BSD, seems to indicate there is enough interest to
keep this going. And then, maybe I am naive, but we are not talking about
new CPUs or a new GC, just another Posix compliant OS very similar to the
existing OSX. Would this really be so much effort?



> But this should be discussed on porters-...@openjdk.java.net so that the
> porters group can have its say.
>
>
Unfortunately, porters-dev is a ghost town. What about bsd-dev?

Cheers, Thomas



> Cheers,
> David
> -
>
>
> The changes, btw, look good.
>>>
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
>> Btw, I was chatting about OpenJDK on BSD yesterday on #netbsd in IRC
>> and I have learned that there are also several porters actively
>> working on OpenJDK on BSD. I will contact those guys and get them
>> to join build-dev@ and hotspot-dev@.
>>
>> There are definitely enough qualified and motivated developers who
>> want to work on OpenJDK for the platforms Oracle doesn't officially
>> support.
>>
>> Adrian
>>
>>

Re: [RFR]: 8187004: No valid toolchains defined for BSD

[David Holmes]

On 31/08/2017 5:08 PM, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:

On 08/31/2017 08:58 AM, Magnus Ihse Bursie wrote:

BSD is buildable for jdk9 in the separate, hardly-maintained bsd-port only. :-(


That's what I guess as well after seeing that the "bsd" directories within
the "jdk" structure are missing in the mainline tree. Then I checked what
NetBSD is using as upstream and saw the reference bsd-port.


I posted a set of patches for jdk9 mainline for building jdk9 on BSD, that was
rejected. :( They ended up in the bsd-port, but this has not been pushed 
upstream
to the mainline, and the bsd port is only sporadically updated from mainline.


I think it won't hurt anyone if those patches are pushed mainline. It seems that
most of the stuff lives inside its own directories, doesn't it? If so, I don't
see any risk of breakage.


Since those changes are either a) general cleanups that all platforms should
benefit from, or b) no-risk bsd-only changes, I'd really like to see them go 
into
the mainline build system.


I agree. I'm all for merging them. If someone has invested so much work into
the port, it shouldn't just go to bitrot in bsd-port. It should be merged
into the mainline tree.


But for that to happen, we apparently need to change some policy about
accepting code for platforms not tested by Oracle. :-(


I don't see why that should be necessary. I have sent in patches for linux-sparc
and linux-zero in the past weeks and they were merged without a hitch.


Those were very minor patches of two quite distinct kinds:

1. Make zero work on platform Z

This is something we can easily accommodate, and it generally doesn't 
take much effort or disturb other platforms.


2. Make the linux-sparc port work again

This is somewhat more significant and does require community support as 
otherwise this is an "orphaned" port. The fact it already exists and was 
starting to bit rot means the acceptance bar is somewhat lower. But 
there is still a question mark over longer term commitment from the 
community for supporting this port.



Patric told me on hotspot-dev that Oracle has no problems accepting these
patches if they are maintained and tested by the community.


A full BSD port, not just Zero on BSD, requires a non-trivial level of 
commitment from the community in terms of maintaining it etc, before it 
can come into mainline. That is why we have the bsd-port project - to 
establish that community and commitment. But AFAICS, and from what was 
said when Magnus proposed this, that community is not active.


So unless something significant has changed with regards to the bsd-port 
project and its supporting community, a full BSD port in mainline seems 
unlikely.


But this should be discussed on porters-...@openjdk.java.net so that the 
porters group can have its say.


Cheers,
David
-


The changes, btw, look good.


Thanks.

Btw, I was chatting about OpenJDK on BSD yesterday on #netbsd in IRC
and I have learned that there are also several porters actively
working on OpenJDK on BSD. I will contact those guys and get them
to join build-dev@ and hotspot-dev@.

There are definitely enough qualified and motivated developers who
want to work on OpenJDK for the platforms Oracle doesn't officially
support.

Adrian

Re: [RFR]: 8187004: No valid toolchains defined for BSD

[John Paul Adrian Glaubitz]

On 08/31/2017 08:58 AM, Magnus Ihse Bursie wrote:
> BSD is buildable for jdk9 in the separate, hardly-maintained bsd-port only. 
> :-(

That's what I guess as well after seeing that the "bsd" directories within
the "jdk" structure are missing in the mainline tree. Then I checked what
NetBSD is using as upstream and saw the reference bsd-port.

> I posted a set of patches for jdk9 mainline for building jdk9 on BSD, that was
> rejected. :( They ended up in the bsd-port, but this has not been pushed 
> upstream
> to the mainline, and the bsd port is only sporadically updated from mainline.

I think it won't hurt anyone if those patches are pushed mainline. It seems that
most of the stuff lives inside its own directories, doesn't it? If so, I don't
see any risk of breakage.

> Since those changes are either a) general cleanups that all platforms should
> benefit from, or b) no-risk bsd-only changes, I'd really like to see them go 
> into
> the mainline build system.

I agree. I'm all for merging them. If someone has invested so much work into
the port, it shouldn't just go to bitrot in bsd-port. It should be merged
into the mainline tree.

> But for that to happen, we apparently need to change some policy about
> accepting code for platforms not tested by Oracle. :-(

I don't see why that should be necessary. I have sent in patches for linux-sparc
and linux-zero in the past weeks and they were merged without a hitch.

Patric told me on hotspot-dev that Oracle has no problems accepting these
patches if they are maintained and tested by the community.

> The changes, btw, look good.

Thanks.

Btw, I was chatting about OpenJDK on BSD yesterday on #netbsd in IRC
and I have learned that there are also several porters actively
working on OpenJDK on BSD. I will contact those guys and get them
to join build-dev@ and hotspot-dev@.

There are definitely enough qualified and motivated developers who
want to work on OpenJDK for the platforms Oracle doesn't officially
support.

Adrian

-- 
 .''`.  John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
: :' :  Debian Developer - glaub...@debian.org
`. `'   Freie Universitaet Berlin - glaub...@physik.fu-berlin.de
  `-GPG: 62FF 8A75 84E0 2956 9546  0006 7426 3B37 F5B5 F913

Re: [RFR]: 8187004: No valid toolchains defined for BSD

[David Holmes]

On 31/08/2017 4:41 PM, Thomas Stüfe wrote:
Looking through my Mails quick, all mails at bsd-port-dev seem to refer 
to jdk8.


Yes the port went dormant after 8.

toolchain.m4 changed a bit since jdk8. Maybe noone attempted to build 
jdk10 yet on BSD and Adrian ran into new errors.


Did some digging. Magnus was trying to drum up support to resurrect the 
BSD port in 9:


http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/build-dev/2016-January/016421.html
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~ihse/JDK-8147795-build-system-support-for-bsd/webrev.01/

but that didn't happen. As you can see from Magnus's patches there is a 
lot more to it than just fixing the valid toolchains.


David
-



..Thomas

On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 8:25 AM, David Holmes > wrote:


On 31/08/2017 4:14 PM, Thomas Stüfe wrote:

Hi Adrian,

this looks fine. Thanks for taking on BSD (I'm a bit confused
though, I
thought BSD is already buildable).


Thomas you beat me to it - on both counts! I too recall others
building for BSD.

David


Best Regards, Thomas

On Wed, Aug 30, 2017 at 10:30 PM, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz <
glaub...@physik.fu-berlin.de
> wrote:

Hello!

I started working on fixing OpenJDK on BSD today and already
ran into
the first issue which is the configure script being unable
to find a
usable toolchain.

This happens because there are no valid toolchains defined
for BSD in
common/autoconf/toolchain.m4. Since both clang and gcc are
supported
on most BSD systems, this can be trivially resolved with:

diff -r 1147dee33745 common/autoconf/toolchain.m4
--- a/common/autoconf/toolchain.m4      Tue Aug 29 17:17:57
2017 +0200
+++ b/common/autoconf/toolchain.m4      Wed Aug 30 22:22:49
2017 +0200
@@ -42,6 +42,7 @@
   VALID_TOOLCHAINS_macosx="gcc clang"
   VALID_TOOLCHAINS_aix="xlc"
   VALID_TOOLCHAINS_windows="microsoft"
+VALID_TOOLCHAINS_bsd="gcc clang"
    # Toolchain descriptions
   TOOLCHAIN_DESCRIPTION_clang="clang/LLVM"

Webrev can be found in [1].

Adrian

[1] http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~glaubitz/8187004/webrev.00/




--
   .''`.  John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
: :' :  Debian Developer - glaub...@debian.org

`. `'   Freie Universitaet Berlin -
glaub...@physik.fu-berlin.de

    `-    GPG: 62FF 8A75 84E0 2956 9546  0006 7426 3B37 F5B5
F913

Re: [RFR]: 8187004: No valid toolchains defined for BSD

[John Paul Adrian Glaubitz]

On 08/31/2017 08:41 AM, Thomas Stüfe wrote:
> Looking through my Mails quick, all mails at bsd-port-dev seem to refer to 
> jdk8.
> 
> toolchain.m4 changed a bit since jdk8. Maybe noone attempted to build jdk10 
> yet on BSD and
> Adrian ran into new errors.

Well, "bsd" is also missing from jdk/src/java.base which means building the JDK
also currently isn't possible. I guess, there is quite some work to be done 
here.

Adrian

-- 
 .''`.  John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
: :' :  Debian Developer - glaub...@debian.org
`. `'   Freie Universitaet Berlin - glaub...@physik.fu-berlin.de
  `-GPG: 62FF 8A75 84E0 2956 9546  0006 7426 3B37 F5B5 F913

Re: [RFR]: 8187004: No valid toolchains defined for BSD

[Magnus Ihse Bursie]

On 2017-08-31 08:25, David Holmes wrote:

On 31/08/2017 4:14 PM, Thomas Stüfe wrote:

Hi Adrian,

this looks fine. Thanks for taking on BSD (I'm a bit confused though, I
thought BSD is already buildable).


Thomas you beat me to it - on both counts! I too recall others 
building for BSD.


BSD is buildable for jdk9 in the separate, hardly-maintained bsd-port 
only. :-(


I posted a set of patches for jdk9 mainline for building jdk9 on BSD, 
that was rejected. :( They ended up in the bsd-port, but this has not 
been pushed upstream to the mainline, and the bsd port is only 
sporadically updated from mainline.


Since those changes are either a) general cleanups that all platforms 
should benefit from, or b) no-risk bsd-only changes, I'd really like to 
see them go into the mainline build system. But for that to happen, we 
apparently need to change some policy about accepting code for platforms 
not tested by Oracle. :-(


The changes, btw, look good.

/Magnus



David


Best Regards, Thomas

On Wed, Aug 30, 2017 at 10:30 PM, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz <
glaub...@physik.fu-berlin.de> wrote:


Hello!

I started working on fixing OpenJDK on BSD today and already ran into
the first issue which is the configure script being unable to find a
usable toolchain.

This happens because there are no valid toolchains defined for BSD in
common/autoconf/toolchain.m4. Since both clang and gcc are supported
on most BSD systems, this can be trivially resolved with:

diff -r 1147dee33745 common/autoconf/toolchain.m4
--- a/common/autoconf/toolchain.m4  Tue Aug 29 17:17:57 2017 +0200
+++ b/common/autoconf/toolchain.m4  Wed Aug 30 22:22:49 2017 +0200
@@ -42,6 +42,7 @@
  VALID_TOOLCHAINS_macosx="gcc clang"
  VALID_TOOLCHAINS_aix="xlc"
  VALID_TOOLCHAINS_windows="microsoft"
+VALID_TOOLCHAINS_bsd="gcc clang"
   # Toolchain descriptions
  TOOLCHAIN_DESCRIPTION_clang="clang/LLVM"

Webrev can be found in [1].

Adrian

[1] http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~glaubitz/8187004/webrev.00/




--
  .''`.  John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
: :' :  Debian Developer - glaub...@debian.org
`. `'   Freie Universitaet Berlin - glaub...@physik.fu-berlin.de
   `-GPG: 62FF 8A75 84E0 2956 9546  0006 7426 3B37 F5B5 F913

Re: [RFR]: 8187004: No valid toolchains defined for BSD

[Thomas Stüfe]

Looking through my Mails quick, all mails at bsd-port-dev seem to refer to
jdk8.

toolchain.m4 changed a bit since jdk8. Maybe noone attempted to build jdk10
yet on BSD and
Adrian ran into new errors.

..Thomas

On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 8:25 AM, David Holmes 
wrote:

> On 31/08/2017 4:14 PM, Thomas Stüfe wrote:
>
>> Hi Adrian,
>>
>> this looks fine. Thanks for taking on BSD (I'm a bit confused though, I
>> thought BSD is already buildable).
>>
>
> Thomas you beat me to it - on both counts! I too recall others building
> for BSD.
>
> David
>
>
> Best Regards, Thomas
>>
>> On Wed, Aug 30, 2017 at 10:30 PM, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz <
>> glaub...@physik.fu-berlin.de> wrote:
>>
>> Hello!
>>>
>>> I started working on fixing OpenJDK on BSD today and already ran into
>>> the first issue which is the configure script being unable to find a
>>> usable toolchain.
>>>
>>> This happens because there are no valid toolchains defined for BSD in
>>> common/autoconf/toolchain.m4. Since both clang and gcc are supported
>>> on most BSD systems, this can be trivially resolved with:
>>>
>>> diff -r 1147dee33745 common/autoconf/toolchain.m4
>>> --- a/common/autoconf/toolchain.m4  Tue Aug 29 17:17:57 2017 +0200
>>> +++ b/common/autoconf/toolchain.m4  Wed Aug 30 22:22:49 2017 +0200
>>> @@ -42,6 +42,7 @@
>>>   VALID_TOOLCHAINS_macosx="gcc clang"
>>>   VALID_TOOLCHAINS_aix="xlc"
>>>   VALID_TOOLCHAINS_windows="microsoft"
>>> +VALID_TOOLCHAINS_bsd="gcc clang"
>>># Toolchain descriptions
>>>   TOOLCHAIN_DESCRIPTION_clang="clang/LLVM"
>>>
>>> Webrev can be found in [1].
>>>
>>> Adrian
>>>
>>> [1] http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~glaubitz/8187004/webrev.00/
>>>


>>> --
>>>   .''`.  John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
>>> : :' :  Debian Developer - glaub...@debian.org
>>> `. `'   Freie Universitaet Berlin - glaub...@physik.fu-berlin.de
>>>`-GPG: 62FF 8A75 84E0 2956 9546  0006 7426 3B37 F5B5 F913
>>>
>>>

Re: [RFR]: 8187004: No valid toolchains defined for BSD

[David Holmes]

On 31/08/2017 4:14 PM, Thomas Stüfe wrote:

Hi Adrian,

this looks fine. Thanks for taking on BSD (I'm a bit confused though, I
thought BSD is already buildable).


Thomas you beat me to it - on both counts! I too recall others building 
for BSD.


David


Best Regards, Thomas

On Wed, Aug 30, 2017 at 10:30 PM, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz <
glaub...@physik.fu-berlin.de> wrote:


Hello!

I started working on fixing OpenJDK on BSD today and already ran into
the first issue which is the configure script being unable to find a
usable toolchain.

This happens because there are no valid toolchains defined for BSD in
common/autoconf/toolchain.m4. Since both clang and gcc are supported
on most BSD systems, this can be trivially resolved with:

diff -r 1147dee33745 common/autoconf/toolchain.m4
--- a/common/autoconf/toolchain.m4  Tue Aug 29 17:17:57 2017 +0200
+++ b/common/autoconf/toolchain.m4  Wed Aug 30 22:22:49 2017 +0200
@@ -42,6 +42,7 @@
  VALID_TOOLCHAINS_macosx="gcc clang"
  VALID_TOOLCHAINS_aix="xlc"
  VALID_TOOLCHAINS_windows="microsoft"
+VALID_TOOLCHAINS_bsd="gcc clang"
   # Toolchain descriptions
  TOOLCHAIN_DESCRIPTION_clang="clang/LLVM"

Webrev can be found in [1].

Adrian

[1] http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~glaubitz/8187004/webrev.00/




--
  .''`.  John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
: :' :  Debian Developer - glaub...@debian.org
`. `'   Freie Universitaet Berlin - glaub...@physik.fu-berlin.de
   `-GPG: 62FF 8A75 84E0 2956 9546  0006 7426 3B37 F5B5 F913

Re: [RFR]: 8187004: No valid toolchains defined for BSD

[Thomas Stüfe]

Hi Adrian,

this looks fine. Thanks for taking on BSD (I'm a bit confused though, I
thought BSD is already buildable).

Best Regards, Thomas

On Wed, Aug 30, 2017 at 10:30 PM, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz <
glaub...@physik.fu-berlin.de> wrote:

> Hello!
>
> I started working on fixing OpenJDK on BSD today and already ran into
> the first issue which is the configure script being unable to find a
> usable toolchain.
>
> This happens because there are no valid toolchains defined for BSD in
> common/autoconf/toolchain.m4. Since both clang and gcc are supported
> on most BSD systems, this can be trivially resolved with:
>
> diff -r 1147dee33745 common/autoconf/toolchain.m4
> --- a/common/autoconf/toolchain.m4  Tue Aug 29 17:17:57 2017 +0200
> +++ b/common/autoconf/toolchain.m4  Wed Aug 30 22:22:49 2017 +0200
> @@ -42,6 +42,7 @@
>  VALID_TOOLCHAINS_macosx="gcc clang"
>  VALID_TOOLCHAINS_aix="xlc"
>  VALID_TOOLCHAINS_windows="microsoft"
> +VALID_TOOLCHAINS_bsd="gcc clang"
>   # Toolchain descriptions
>  TOOLCHAIN_DESCRIPTION_clang="clang/LLVM"
>
> Webrev can be found in [1].
>
> Adrian
>
> [1] http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~glaubitz/8187004/webrev.00/
>>
>
> --
>  .''`.  John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
> : :' :  Debian Developer - glaub...@debian.org
> `. `'   Freie Universitaet Berlin - glaub...@physik.fu-berlin.de
>   `-GPG: 62FF 8A75 84E0 2956 9546  0006 7426 3B37 F5B5 F913
>