Thanks Vladimir and Andrew!
1) support for macos/aarch64 is not just jep-391, we split our jep into pieces, some of them were macos/aarch64 independent and were pushed to upstream as separate commits ( for example, macos MAP_JIT support). also some important pieces from community ( like JNF dependency removal by Phil Race). All these pieces need to be backported before jep-391.
For JEP 388 we have a similar situation, although those independent changes are at a smaller scale I would say. For example let's have a look at JDK-8248403 [1], does it need its own PR on the jdk11u repository or is it fine package it all together in one big PR? Here is a rebased jdk11u branch btw: https://github.com/lewurm/jdk11u/commits/jdk11u-windows
2) we have a plan to go in a traditional way, ojdk17 -> ojdk15 -> ojdk13 -> ojdk11
I would say jdk13u/jdk15u is low-priority for us, but I can have a look at them for JEP 388 once I've figured out the process for jdk11u (assuming it's the same).
Cross compilation is not a requirement for a backport.
Cross compilation is the only way to build Windows+Arm64 today, so we need at least the hacky variant that I suggested. Thanks, -Bernhard [1] https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8248403 ________________________________________ From: Vladimir Kempik Sent: Wednesday, March 24, 2021 09:53 To: Bernhard Urban-Forster Cc: Andrew Haley; Anton Kozlov; aarch64-port-dev@openjdk.java.net; Monica Beckwith; jdk-updates-dev@openjdk.java.net; Magnus Ihse Bursie; openjdk-aarch64 Subject: Re: JDK-8253947: JEP 388 Windows/AArch64 backport to jdk11u Hello there are few caveats with backporting jep-391: 1) support for macos/aarch64 is not just jep-391, we split our jep into pieces, some of them were macos/aarch64 independent and were pushed to upstream as separate commits ( for example, macos MAP_JIT support). also some important pieces from community ( like JNF dependency removal by Phil Race). All these pieces need to be backported before jep-391. 2) we have a plan to go in a traditional way, ojdk17 -> ojdk15 -> ojdk13 -> ojdk11 If you don’t want to bother with jdk15/13 I would suggest you to go without waiting for jep-391. Regards , Vladimir
24 марта 2021 г., в 00:35, Bernhard Urban-Forster <beurba@microsoft.com> написал(а):
Hello,
Spinning off the discussion from here: https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/pull/2200#issuecomment-804927150
And further context, there have been some discussions about it before: https://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/aarch64-port-dev/2020-October/009727...
Open questions:
1. JEP 391 (macOS/AArch64) has a dependency on JEP 388, and I'm assuming we want both to be backported. Question: Is it preferred to do it one go (both together), or should we do it separately (that would be Windows first, then macOS)?
2. JEP 388 includes build changes to add cross compilation support for Windows in a hacky way. It's enough to get a build out of it [1], but it's not exactly clean. It was eventually cleaned up with the "WINENV" patch by Magnus [2], but imho it isn't trivial to backport that change. Thoughts?
Assuming the answer to question 1 is to split the backports: I think https://github.com/openjdk/aarch64-port/tree/jdk11-windows by Ludovic is in an okay shape, but I will take it for a spin tomorrow and then submit an initial PR against https://github.com/openjdk/jdk11u
Thank you, -Bernhard
[1] with workarounds: https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/pull/212#issuecomment-695024586 [2] https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/pull/1597