Re: RFR: JDK-8282532: Allow explicitly setting build platform alongside --openjdk-target [v4]
On Thu, 3 Mar 2022 15:54:44 GMT, Magnus Ihse Bursie wrote: >> Would it be better if I changed that to say the flags are misleading, or if >> I reverted it back to legacy in that case? (Since that seems to be the >> primary concern with using them) > > As the build documentation says, the standard autoconf tripled was created > for building Canadian cross compilers (i.e. cross-compiling a > cross-compiler). This means that they use "host" for what we call "target", > and they use "target" for something that is not relevant for us. This caused > a lot of confusion early on when OpenJDK started using autoconf. > > If you know what you are doing, there's nothing inherently *wrong* with using > the autoconf triplet. It's just confusing, due to the name clash of "target". > > If you think this is not clear enough from the documenation and need to add > something to the warnings printed by the configure wrapper, sure, go ahead > and add a line about how this can be confusing. > > But it is not unsafe. Alright, will change accordingly, thanks for the review - PR: https://git.openjdk.java.net/jdk/pull/7656
Re: RFR: JDK-8282532: Allow explicitly setting build platform alongside --openjdk-target [v4]
On Thu, 3 Mar 2022 08:12:37 GMT, Julian Waters wrote: >> Currently the only other option for manually configuring the build platform >> while cross compiling are devkits, which don't work on certain systems and >> are also more focused on differentiating the build and target compilers >> instead. This patch adds the ability to explicitly set the build platform >> through a new option, which can be especially helpful for when autodetection >> fails and devkits cannot be relied on, and also for simpler cross >> compilation cases (Like the one described in building.md) >> >> WIP: Translation from markdown to html > > Julian Waters has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional > commit since the last revision: > > Syntax Managed to get pandoc to work, but it seems to have changed other html files as well. I'm not sure what caused this- I haven't modified the other markdown files at all - PR: https://git.openjdk.java.net/jdk/pull/7656
Re: RFR: JDK-8282532: Allow explicitly setting build platform alongside --openjdk-target [v4]
On Thu, 3 Mar 2022 13:32:33 GMT, Julian Waters wrote: >> make/autoconf/configure line 298: >> >>> 296: exit 1 >>> 297: else >>> 298: echo "Warning: You are using unsafe autoconf cross-compilation >>> flags." >> >> The autoconf flags are not really unsafe, they are just misleadingly named. >> I'd rather see that you restore "legacy" in this output, and the >> conf_legacy_crosscompile variable name. > > Would it be better if I changed that to say the flags are misleading, or if I > reverted it back to legacy in that case? (Since that seems to be the primary > concern with using them) As the build documentation says, the standard autoconf tripled was created for building Canadian cross compilers (i.e. cross-compiling a cross-compiler). This means that they use "host" for what we call "target", and they use "target" for something that is not relevant for us. This caused a lot of confusion early on when OpenJDK started using autoconf. If you know what you are doing, there's nothing inherently *wrong* with using the autoconf triplet. It's just confusing, due to the name clash of "target". If you think this is not clear enough from the documenation and need to add something to the warnings printed by the configure wrapper, sure, go ahead and add a line about how this can be confusing. But it is not unsafe. - PR: https://git.openjdk.java.net/jdk/pull/7656
Re: RFR: JDK-8282532: Allow explicitly setting build platform alongside --openjdk-target [v4]
On Thu, 3 Mar 2022 13:16:08 GMT, Magnus Ihse Bursie wrote: >> Julian Waters has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional >> commit since the last revision: >> >> Syntax > > make/autoconf/configure line 298: > >> 296: exit 1 >> 297: else >> 298: echo "Warning: You are using unsafe autoconf cross-compilation >> flags." > > The autoconf flags are not really unsafe, they are just misleadingly named. > I'd rather see that you restore "legacy" in this output, and the > conf_legacy_crosscompile variable name. Would it be better if I changed that to say the flags are misleading, or if I reverted it back to legacy in that case? (Since that seems to be the primary concern with using them) - PR: https://git.openjdk.java.net/jdk/pull/7656
Re: RFR: JDK-8282532: Allow explicitly setting build platform alongside --openjdk-target [v4]
On Thu, 3 Mar 2022 08:12:37 GMT, Julian Waters wrote: >> Currently the only other option for manually configuring the build platform >> while cross compiling are devkits, which don't work on certain systems and >> are also more focused on differentiating the build and target compilers >> instead. This patch adds the ability to explicitly set the build platform >> through a new option, which can be especially helpful for when autodetection >> fails and devkits cannot be relied on, and also for simpler cross >> compilation cases (Like the one described in building.md) >> >> WIP: Translation from markdown to html > > Julian Waters has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional > commit since the last revision: > > Syntax This is looking much better. Apart from the "unsafe" comment, the only thing remaining is that you update building.html by running `make update-build-docs`. make/autoconf/configure line 298: > 296: exit 1 > 297: else > 298: echo "Warning: You are using unsafe autoconf cross-compilation > flags." The autoconf flags are not really unsafe, they are just misleadingly named. I'd rather see that you restore "legacy" in this output, and the conf_legacy_crosscompile variable name. - Changes requested by ihse (Reviewer). PR: https://git.openjdk.java.net/jdk/pull/7656
