[8u] RFR: 8073139: PPC64: User-visible arch directory and os.arch value on ppc64le cause issues with Java tooling
Hi, Could I please get reviews for this JDK 8 backport which fixes some tooling issues on Linux ppc64le? Prior this patch, a ppc64le build would report as "ppc64" via os.arch system property which breaks tooling such as maven in as much as if some dependency needs native libraries it would download BE binaries where it actually should download LE binaries. Example for os.arch/java.library.path: pre: $ ./jdk8-pre-ppc64le/bin/java TestProperty java.library.path = /usr/java/packages/lib/ppc64:/usr/lib64:/lib64:/lib:/usr/lib os.arch = ppc64 post: $ ./jdk8-post-ppc64le/bin/java TestProperty java.library.path = /usr/java/packages/lib/ppc64le:/usr/lib64:/lib64:/lib:/usr/lib os.arch = ppc64le Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8073139 webrevs: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~sgehwolf/webrevs/JDK-8073139/jdk8/01/ Including build-dev for build changes. hotspot-dev and ppc-aix-port-dev for JDK/hotspot changes. This backport should only have minor differences to the changes in JDK 11. We have been using similar patches in Fedora for months. Thoughts? Thanks, Severin
Hi Severin, Changes present seem okay, but I don't see the SA changes, and don't you want the JDK test change from this as well: http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk9/jdk9/jdk/rev/2ff471390a03 ?? Thanks, David On 26/09/2018 7:26 AM, Severin Gehwolf wrote:
Hi,
Could I please get reviews for this JDK 8 backport which fixes some tooling issues on Linux ppc64le? Prior this patch, a ppc64le build would report as "ppc64" via os.arch system property which breaks tooling such as maven in as much as if some dependency needs native libraries it would download BE binaries where it actually should download LE binaries. Example for os.arch/java.library.path:
pre: $ ./jdk8-pre-ppc64le/bin/java TestProperty java.library.path = /usr/java/packages/lib/ppc64:/usr/lib64:/lib64:/lib:/usr/lib os.arch = ppc64
post: $ ./jdk8-post-ppc64le/bin/java TestProperty java.library.path = /usr/java/packages/lib/ppc64le:/usr/lib64:/lib64:/lib:/usr/lib os.arch = ppc64le
Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8073139 webrevs: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~sgehwolf/webrevs/JDK-8073139/jdk8/01/
Including build-dev for build changes. hotspot-dev and ppc-aix-port-dev for JDK/hotspot changes.
This backport should only have minor differences to the changes in JDK 11. We have been using similar patches in Fedora for months. Thoughts?
Thanks, Severin
Hi David, Thanks for the review! On Wed, 2018-09-26 at 07:39 -0400, David Holmes wrote:
Hi Severin,
Changes present seem okay, but I don't see the SA changes, and don't you want the JDK test change from this as well:
http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk9/jdk9/jdk/rev/2ff471390a03
??
Test changes are there: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~sgehwolf/webrevs/JDK-8073139/jdk8/01/jdk/test/su... http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~sgehwolf/webrevs/JDK-8073139/jdk8/01/jdk/test/to... The SA isn't built on ppc64/ppc64le (INCLUDE_SA=false). I can include SA changes in the backport, but they won't do anything. Thanks, Severin
On 26/09/2018 7:26 AM, Severin Gehwolf wrote:
Hi,
Could I please get reviews for this JDK 8 backport which fixes some tooling issues on Linux ppc64le? Prior this patch, a ppc64le build would report as "ppc64" via os.arch system property which breaks tooling such as maven in as much as if some dependency needs native libraries it would download BE binaries where it actually should download LE binaries. Example for os.arch/java.library.path:
pre: $ ./jdk8-pre-ppc64le/bin/java TestProperty java.library.path = /usr/java/packages/lib/ppc64:/usr/lib64:/lib64:/lib:/usr/lib os.arch = ppc64
post: $ ./jdk8-post-ppc64le/bin/java TestProperty java.library.path = /usr/java/packages/lib/ppc64le:/usr/lib64:/lib64:/lib:/usr/lib os.arch = ppc64le
Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8073139 webrevs: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~sgehwolf/webrevs/JDK-8073139/jdk8/01/
Including build-dev for build changes. hotspot-dev and ppc-aix-port-dev for JDK/hotspot changes.
This backport should only have minor differences to the changes in JDK 11. We have been using similar patches in Fedora for months. Thoughts?
Thanks, Severin
On 26/09/2018 7:52 AM, Severin Gehwolf wrote:
Hi David,
Thanks for the review!
On Wed, 2018-09-26 at 07:39 -0400, David Holmes wrote:
Hi Severin,
Changes present seem okay, but I don't see the SA changes, and don't you want the JDK test change from this as well:
http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk9/jdk9/jdk/rev/2ff471390a03
??
Test changes are there: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~sgehwolf/webrevs/JDK-8073139/jdk8/01/jdk/test/su... http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~sgehwolf/webrevs/JDK-8073139/jdk8/01/jdk/test/to...
Oops I missed the split up. Thanks. All seems fine,
The SA isn't built on ppc64/ppc64le (INCLUDE_SA=false). I can include SA changes in the backport, but they won't do anything.
Okay. Thanks, David
Thanks, Severin
On 26/09/2018 7:26 AM, Severin Gehwolf wrote:
Hi,
Could I please get reviews for this JDK 8 backport which fixes some tooling issues on Linux ppc64le? Prior this patch, a ppc64le build would report as "ppc64" via os.arch system property which breaks tooling such as maven in as much as if some dependency needs native libraries it would download BE binaries where it actually should download LE binaries. Example for os.arch/java.library.path:
pre: $ ./jdk8-pre-ppc64le/bin/java TestProperty java.library.path = /usr/java/packages/lib/ppc64:/usr/lib64:/lib64:/lib:/usr/lib os.arch = ppc64
post: $ ./jdk8-post-ppc64le/bin/java TestProperty java.library.path = /usr/java/packages/lib/ppc64le:/usr/lib64:/lib64:/lib:/usr/lib os.arch = ppc64le
Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8073139 webrevs: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~sgehwolf/webrevs/JDK-8073139/jdk8/01/
Including build-dev for build changes. hotspot-dev and ppc-aix-port-dev for JDK/hotspot changes.
This backport should only have minor differences to the changes in JDK 11. We have been using similar patches in Fedora for months. Thoughts?
Thanks, Severin
Any more reviewers for this? Thanks, Severin On Wed, 2018-09-26 at 08:20 -0400, David Holmes wrote:
On 26/09/2018 7:52 AM, Severin Gehwolf wrote:
Hi David,
Thanks for the review!
On Wed, 2018-09-26 at 07:39 -0400, David Holmes wrote:
Hi Severin,
Changes present seem okay, but I don't see the SA changes, and don't you want the JDK test change from this as well:
http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk9/jdk9/jdk/rev/2ff471390a03
??
Test changes are there: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~sgehwolf/webrevs/JDK-8073139/jdk8/01/jdk/test/su... http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~sgehwolf/webrevs/JDK-8073139/jdk8/01/jdk/test/to...
Oops I missed the split up. Thanks.
All seems fine,
The SA isn't built on ppc64/ppc64le (INCLUDE_SA=false). I can include SA changes in the backport, but they won't do anything.
Okay.
Thanks, David
Thanks, Severin
On 26/09/2018 7:26 AM, Severin Gehwolf wrote:
Hi,
Could I please get reviews for this JDK 8 backport which fixes some tooling issues on Linux ppc64le? Prior this patch, a ppc64le build would report as "ppc64" via os.arch system property which breaks tooling such as maven in as much as if some dependency needs native libraries it would download BE binaries where it actually should download LE binaries. Example for os.arch/java.library.path:
pre: $ ./jdk8-pre-ppc64le/bin/java TestProperty java.library.path = /usr/java/packages/lib/ppc64:/usr/lib64:/lib64:/lib:/usr/lib os.arch = ppc64
post: $ ./jdk8-post-ppc64le/bin/java TestProperty java.library.path = /usr/java/packages/lib/ppc64le:/usr/lib64:/lib64:/lib:/usr/lib os.arch = ppc64le
Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8073139 webrevs: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~sgehwolf/webrevs/JDK-8073139/jdk8/01/
Including build-dev for build changes. hotspot-dev and ppc-aix-port-dev for JDK/hotspot changes.
This backport should only have minor differences to the changes in JDK 11. We have been using similar patches in Fedora for months. Thoughts?
Thanks, Severin
Build changes look ok to me. /Erik On 2018-09-26 04:26, Severin Gehwolf wrote:
Hi,
Could I please get reviews for this JDK 8 backport which fixes some tooling issues on Linux ppc64le? Prior this patch, a ppc64le build would report as "ppc64" via os.arch system property which breaks tooling such as maven in as much as if some dependency needs native libraries it would download BE binaries where it actually should download LE binaries. Example for os.arch/java.library.path:
pre: $ ./jdk8-pre-ppc64le/bin/java TestProperty java.library.path = /usr/java/packages/lib/ppc64:/usr/lib64:/lib64:/lib:/usr/lib os.arch = ppc64
post: $ ./jdk8-post-ppc64le/bin/java TestProperty java.library.path = /usr/java/packages/lib/ppc64le:/usr/lib64:/lib64:/lib:/usr/lib os.arch = ppc64le
Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8073139 webrevs: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~sgehwolf/webrevs/JDK-8073139/jdk8/01/
Including build-dev for build changes. hotspot-dev and ppc-aix-port-dev for JDK/hotspot changes.
This backport should only have minor differences to the changes in JDK 11. We have been using similar patches in Fedora for months. Thoughts?
Thanks, Severin
On Fri, 2018-09-28 at 08:56 -0700, Erik Joelsson wrote:
Build changes look ok to me.
Thanks for the review, Erik! Cheers, Severin
/Erik
On 2018-09-26 04:26, Severin Gehwolf wrote:
Hi,
Could I please get reviews for this JDK 8 backport which fixes some tooling issues on Linux ppc64le? Prior this patch, a ppc64le build would report as "ppc64" via os.arch system property which breaks tooling such as maven in as much as if some dependency needs native libraries it would download BE binaries where it actually should download LE binaries. Example for os.arch/java.library.path:
pre: $ ./jdk8-pre-ppc64le/bin/java TestProperty java.library.path = /usr/java/packages/lib/ppc64:/usr/lib64:/lib64:/lib:/usr/lib os.arch = ppc64
post: $ ./jdk8-post-ppc64le/bin/java TestProperty java.library.path = /usr/java/packages/lib/ppc64le:/usr/lib64:/lib64:/lib:/usr/lib os.arch = ppc64le
Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8073139 webrevs: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~sgehwolf/webrevs/JDK-8073139/jdk8/01/
Including build-dev for build changes. hotspot-dev and ppc-aix-port-dev for JDK/hotspot changes.
This backport should only have minor differences to the changes in JDK 11. We have been using similar patches in Fedora for months. Thoughts?
Thanks, Severin
Hi, Pinging PPC porters. Does this look reasonable to you? Thanks, Severin On Fri, 2018-09-28 at 08:56 -0700, Erik Joelsson wrote:
Build changes look ok to me.
/Erik
On 2018-09-26 04:26, Severin Gehwolf wrote:
Hi,
Could I please get reviews for this JDK 8 backport which fixes some tooling issues on Linux ppc64le? Prior this patch, a ppc64le build would report as "ppc64" via os.arch system property which breaks tooling such as maven in as much as if some dependency needs native libraries it would download BE binaries where it actually should download LE binaries. Example for os.arch/java.library.path:
pre: $ ./jdk8-pre-ppc64le/bin/java TestProperty java.library.path = /usr/java/packages/lib/ppc64:/usr/lib64:/lib64:/lib:/usr/lib os.arch = ppc64
post: $ ./jdk8-post-ppc64le/bin/java TestProperty java.library.path = /usr/java/packages/lib/ppc64le:/usr/lib64:/lib64:/lib:/usr/lib os.arch = ppc64le
Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8073139 webrevs: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~sgehwolf/webrevs/JDK-8073139/jdk8/01/
Including build-dev for build changes. hotspot-dev and ppc-aix-port-dev for JDK/hotspot changes.
This backport should only have minor differences to the changes in JDK 11. We have been using similar patches in Fedora for months. Thoughts?
Thanks, Severin
Hi, I'm fine with this. If I remember correctly, this was proposed before but never pushed in the end. Did you test this on ppc64 be, too? Best regards, Goetz.
-----Original Message----- From: ppc-aix-port-dev <ppc-aix-port-dev-bounces@openjdk.java.net> On Behalf Of Severin Gehwolf Sent: Dienstag, 2. Oktober 2018 12:34 To: Erik Joelsson <erik.joelsson@oracle.com>; hotspot-dev <hotspot- dev@openjdk.java.net>; ppc-aix-port-dev <ppc-aix-port- dev@openjdk.java.net>; build-dev <build-dev@openjdk.java.net> Subject: Re: [PING] [8u] RFR: 8073139: PPC64: User-visible arch directory and os.arch value on ppc64le cause issues with Java tooling
Hi,
Pinging PPC porters. Does this look reasonable to you?
Thanks, Severin
On Fri, 2018-09-28 at 08:56 -0700, Erik Joelsson wrote:
Build changes look ok to me.
/Erik
On 2018-09-26 04:26, Severin Gehwolf wrote:
Hi,
Could I please get reviews for this JDK 8 backport which fixes some tooling issues on Linux ppc64le? Prior this patch, a ppc64le build would report as "ppc64" via os.arch system property which breaks tooling such as maven in as much as if some dependency needs native libraries it would download BE binaries where it actually should download LE binaries. Example for os.arch/java.library.path:
pre: $ ./jdk8-pre-ppc64le/bin/java TestProperty java.library.path = /usr/java/packages/lib/ppc64:/usr/lib64:/lib64:/lib:/usr/lib os.arch = ppc64
post: $ ./jdk8-post-ppc64le/bin/java TestProperty java.library.path = /usr/java/packages/lib/ppc64le:/usr/lib64:/lib64:/lib:/usr/lib os.arch = ppc64le
Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8073139 webrevs: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~sgehwolf/webrevs/JDK- 8073139/jdk8/01/
Including build-dev for build changes. hotspot-dev and ppc-aix-port-dev for JDK/hotspot changes.
This backport should only have minor differences to the changes in JDK 11. We have been using similar patches in Fedora for months. Thoughts?
Thanks, Severin
Hi Goetz, On Tue, 2018-10-02 at 10:40 +0000, Lindenmaier, Goetz wrote:
Hi,
I'm fine with this.
Thanks for the review!
If I remember correctly, this was proposed before but never pushed in the end.
Interesting.
Did you test this on ppc64 be, too?
I have not. Will do so, though. Thanks, Severin
Best regards, Goetz.
-----Original Message----- From: ppc-aix-port-dev <ppc-aix-port-dev-bounces@openjdk.java.net> On Behalf Of Severin Gehwolf Sent: Dienstag, 2. Oktober 2018 12:34 To: Erik Joelsson <erik.joelsson@oracle.com>; hotspot-dev <hotspot- dev@openjdk.java.net>; ppc-aix-port-dev <ppc-aix-port- dev@openjdk.java.net>; build-dev <build-dev@openjdk.java.net> Subject: Re: [PING] [8u] RFR: 8073139: PPC64: User-visible arch directory and os.arch value on ppc64le cause issues with Java tooling
Hi,
Pinging PPC porters. Does this look reasonable to you?
Thanks, Severin
On Fri, 2018-09-28 at 08:56 -0700, Erik Joelsson wrote:
Build changes look ok to me.
/Erik
On 2018-09-26 04:26, Severin Gehwolf wrote:
Hi,
Could I please get reviews for this JDK 8 backport which fixes some tooling issues on Linux ppc64le? Prior this patch, a ppc64le build would report as "ppc64" via os.arch system property which breaks tooling such as maven in as much as if some dependency needs native libraries it would download BE binaries where it actually should download LE binaries. Example for os.arch/java.library.path:
pre: $ ./jdk8-pre-ppc64le/bin/java TestProperty java.library.path =
/usr/java/packages/lib/ppc64:/usr/lib64:/lib64:/lib:/usr/lib
os.arch = ppc64
post: $ ./jdk8-post-ppc64le/bin/java TestProperty java.library.path =
/usr/java/packages/lib/ppc64le:/usr/lib64:/lib64:/lib:/usr/lib
os.arch = ppc64le
Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8073139 webrevs: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~sgehwolf/webrevs/JDK-
8073139/jdk8/01/
Including build-dev for build changes. hotspot-dev and ppc-aix-port-dev for JDK/hotspot changes.
This backport should only have minor differences to the changes in JDK 11. We have been using similar patches in Fedora for months. Thoughts?
Thanks, Severin
Hi Severin, here for example: http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/build-dev/2015-July/015370.html While the fix proposed there looks different and the downport was never finished. Best regards, Goetz.
-----Original Message----- From: Severin Gehwolf <sgehwolf@redhat.com> Sent: Dienstag, 2. Oktober 2018 13:09 To: Lindenmaier, Goetz <goetz.lindenmaier@sap.com>; Erik Joelsson <erik.joelsson@oracle.com>; hotspot-dev <hotspot- dev@openjdk.java.net>; ppc-aix-port-dev <ppc-aix-port- dev@openjdk.java.net>; build-dev <build-dev@openjdk.java.net> Subject: Re: [PING] [8u] RFR: 8073139: PPC64: User-visible arch directory and os.arch value on ppc64le cause issues with Java tooling
Hi Goetz,
On Tue, 2018-10-02 at 10:40 +0000, Lindenmaier, Goetz wrote:
Hi,
I'm fine with this.
Thanks for the review!
If I remember correctly, this was proposed before but never pushed in the end.
Interesting.
Did you test this on ppc64 be, too?
I have not. Will do so, though.
Thanks, Severin
Best regards, Goetz.
-----Original Message----- From: ppc-aix-port-dev <ppc-aix-port-dev-bounces@openjdk.java.net> On Behalf Of Severin Gehwolf Sent: Dienstag, 2. Oktober 2018 12:34 To: Erik Joelsson <erik.joelsson@oracle.com>; hotspot-dev <hotspot- dev@openjdk.java.net>; ppc-aix-port-dev <ppc-aix-port- dev@openjdk.java.net>; build-dev <build-dev@openjdk.java.net> Subject: Re: [PING] [8u] RFR: 8073139: PPC64: User-visible arch directory and os.arch value on ppc64le cause issues with Java tooling
Hi,
Pinging PPC porters. Does this look reasonable to you?
Thanks, Severin
On Fri, 2018-09-28 at 08:56 -0700, Erik Joelsson wrote:
Build changes look ok to me.
/Erik
On 2018-09-26 04:26, Severin Gehwolf wrote:
Hi,
Could I please get reviews for this JDK 8 backport which fixes some tooling issues on Linux ppc64le? Prior this patch, a ppc64le build would report as "ppc64" via os.arch system property which breaks tooling such as maven in as much as if some dependency needs native libraries it would download BE binaries where it actually should download LE binaries. Example for os.arch/java.library.path:
pre: $ ./jdk8-pre-ppc64le/bin/java TestProperty java.library.path =
/usr/java/packages/lib/ppc64:/usr/lib64:/lib64:/lib:/usr/lib
os.arch = ppc64
post: $ ./jdk8-post-ppc64le/bin/java TestProperty java.library.path =
/usr/java/packages/lib/ppc64le:/usr/lib64:/lib64:/lib:/usr/lib
os.arch = ppc64le
Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8073139 webrevs: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~sgehwolf/webrevs/JDK-
8073139/jdk8/01/
Including build-dev for build changes. hotspot-dev and ppc-aix-port-
dev
for JDK/hotspot changes.
This backport should only have minor differences to the changes in JDK 11. We have been using similar patches in Fedora for months. Thoughts?
Thanks, Severin
Hi Goetz, I'm a bit confused :-/ On Tue, 2018-10-02 at 12:39 +0000, Lindenmaier, Goetz wrote:
Hi Severin,
here for example: http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/build-dev/2015-July/015370.html
As far as I can see that was relating to the JDK-head fix which wasn't available at the time (July vs. pushed in Dec). The original review thread was here: http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/build-dev/2015-December/016103.html JDK-8073139 has been fixed in JDK 9+ since December 14, 2015.
While the fix proposed there looks different and the downport was never finished.
FWIW, this is a review request for the 8u backport :) Thanks, Severin
Best regards, Goetz.
-----Original Message----- From: Severin Gehwolf <sgehwolf@redhat.com> Sent: Dienstag, 2. Oktober 2018 13:09 To: Lindenmaier, Goetz <goetz.lindenmaier@sap.com>; Erik Joelsson <erik.joelsson@oracle.com>; hotspot-dev <hotspot- dev@openjdk.java.net>; ppc-aix-port-dev <ppc-aix-port- dev@openjdk.java.net>; build-dev <build-dev@openjdk.java.net> Subject: Re: [PING] [8u] RFR: 8073139: PPC64: User-visible arch directory and os.arch value on ppc64le cause issues with Java tooling
Hi Goetz,
On Tue, 2018-10-02 at 10:40 +0000, Lindenmaier, Goetz wrote:
Hi,
I'm fine with this.
Thanks for the review!
If I remember correctly, this was proposed before but never pushed in the end.
Interesting.
Did you test this on ppc64 be, too?
I have not. Will do so, though.
Thanks, Severin
Best regards, Goetz.
-----Original Message----- From: ppc-aix-port-dev <ppc-aix-port-dev-bounces@openjdk.java.net>
On
Behalf Of Severin Gehwolf Sent: Dienstag, 2. Oktober 2018 12:34 To: Erik Joelsson <erik.joelsson@oracle.com>; hotspot-dev <hotspot- dev@openjdk.java.net>; ppc-aix-port-dev <ppc-aix-port- dev@openjdk.java.net>; build-dev <build-dev@openjdk.java.net> Subject: Re: [PING] [8u] RFR: 8073139: PPC64: User-visible arch directory
and
os.arch value on ppc64le cause issues with Java tooling
Hi,
Pinging PPC porters. Does this look reasonable to you?
Thanks, Severin
On Fri, 2018-09-28 at 08:56 -0700, Erik Joelsson wrote:
Build changes look ok to me.
/Erik
On 2018-09-26 04:26, Severin Gehwolf wrote:
Hi,
Could I please get reviews for this JDK 8 backport which fixes some tooling issues on Linux ppc64le? Prior this patch, a ppc64le build would report as "ppc64" via os.arch system property which breaks tooling such as maven in as much as if some dependency needs
native
libraries it would download BE binaries where it actually should download LE binaries. Example for os.arch/java.library.path:
pre: $ ./jdk8-pre-ppc64le/bin/java TestProperty java.library.path =
/usr/java/packages/lib/ppc64:/usr/lib64:/lib64:/lib:/usr/lib
os.arch = ppc64
post: $ ./jdk8-post-ppc64le/bin/java TestProperty java.library.path =
/usr/java/packages/lib/ppc64le:/usr/lib64:/lib64:/lib:/usr/lib
os.arch = ppc64le
Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8073139 webrevs: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~sgehwolf/webrevs/JDK-
8073139/jdk8/01/
Including build-dev for build changes. hotspot-dev and ppc-aix-port-
dev
for JDK/hotspot changes.
This backport should only have minor differences to the changes in
JDK
11. We have been using similar patches in Fedora for months.
Thoughts?
Thanks, Severin
yes, there was the backport review requeset, and there was another one before that, but both never got pushed to 8u. There also were webrevs for the backport, which didn't apply any more after a while. So it's good if someone drives this now, finally :) Best regards, Goetz.
-----Original Message----- From: Severin Gehwolf <sgehwolf@redhat.com> Sent: Dienstag, 2. Oktober 2018 15:00 To: Lindenmaier, Goetz <goetz.lindenmaier@sap.com>; Erik Joelsson <erik.joelsson@oracle.com>; hotspot-dev <hotspot- dev@openjdk.java.net>; ppc-aix-port-dev <ppc-aix-port- dev@openjdk.java.net>; build-dev <build-dev@openjdk.java.net> Subject: Re: [PING] [8u] RFR: 8073139: PPC64: User-visible arch directory and os.arch value on ppc64le cause issues with Java tooling
Hi Goetz,
I'm a bit confused :-/
On Tue, 2018-10-02 at 12:39 +0000, Lindenmaier, Goetz wrote:
Hi Severin,
here for example: http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/build-dev/2015- July/015370.html
As far as I can see that was relating to the JDK-head fix which wasn't available at the time (July vs. pushed in Dec). The original review thread was here: http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/build-dev/2015- December/016103.html
JDK-8073139 has been fixed in JDK 9+ since December 14, 2015.
While the fix proposed there looks different and the downport was never finished.
FWIW, this is a review request for the 8u backport :)
Thanks, Severin
Best regards, Goetz.
-----Original Message----- From: Severin Gehwolf <sgehwolf@redhat.com> Sent: Dienstag, 2. Oktober 2018 13:09 To: Lindenmaier, Goetz <goetz.lindenmaier@sap.com>; Erik Joelsson <erik.joelsson@oracle.com>; hotspot-dev <hotspot- dev@openjdk.java.net>; ppc-aix-port-dev <ppc-aix-port- dev@openjdk.java.net>; build-dev <build-dev@openjdk.java.net> Subject: Re: [PING] [8u] RFR: 8073139: PPC64: User-visible arch directory and os.arch value on ppc64le cause issues with Java tooling
Hi Goetz,
On Tue, 2018-10-02 at 10:40 +0000, Lindenmaier, Goetz wrote:
Hi,
I'm fine with this.
Thanks for the review!
If I remember correctly, this was proposed before but never pushed in the end.
Interesting.
Did you test this on ppc64 be, too?
I have not. Will do so, though.
Thanks, Severin
Best regards, Goetz.
-----Original Message----- From: ppc-aix-port-dev <ppc-aix-port-dev- bounces@openjdk.java.net>
On
Behalf Of Severin Gehwolf Sent: Dienstag, 2. Oktober 2018 12:34 To: Erik Joelsson <erik.joelsson@oracle.com>; hotspot-dev <hotspot- dev@openjdk.java.net>; ppc-aix-port-dev <ppc-aix-port- dev@openjdk.java.net>; build-dev <build-dev@openjdk.java.net> Subject: Re: [PING] [8u] RFR: 8073139: PPC64: User-visible arch directory
and
os.arch value on ppc64le cause issues with Java tooling
Hi,
Pinging PPC porters. Does this look reasonable to you?
Thanks, Severin
On Fri, 2018-09-28 at 08:56 -0700, Erik Joelsson wrote:
Build changes look ok to me.
/Erik
On 2018-09-26 04:26, Severin Gehwolf wrote: > Hi, > > Could I please get reviews for this JDK 8 backport which fixes some > tooling issues on Linux ppc64le? Prior this patch, a ppc64le build > would report as "ppc64" via os.arch system property which breaks > tooling such as maven in as much as if some dependency needs
native
> libraries it would download BE binaries where it actually should > download LE binaries. Example for os.arch/java.library.path: > > pre: > $ ./jdk8-pre-ppc64le/bin/java TestProperty > java.library.path =
/usr/java/packages/lib/ppc64:/usr/lib64:/lib64:/lib:/usr/lib
> os.arch = ppc64 > > post: > $ ./jdk8-post-ppc64le/bin/java TestProperty > java.library.path =
/usr/java/packages/lib/ppc64le:/usr/lib64:/lib64:/lib:/usr/lib
> os.arch = ppc64le > > Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8073139 > webrevs: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~sgehwolf/webrevs/JDK-
8073139/jdk8/01/
> > Including build-dev for build changes. hotspot-dev and ppc-aix- port-
dev
> for JDK/hotspot changes. > > This backport should only have minor differences to the changes in
JDK
> 11. We have been using similar patches in Fedora for months.
Thoughts?
> > Thanks, > Severin >
Hi Goetz, On Tue, 2018-10-02 at 10:40 +0000, Lindenmaier, Goetz wrote: [...]
Did you test this on ppc64 be, too?
I've tested this patch on PPC64 BE Linux now too. There is no change (as expected): $ ./jdk8-ppc64be-after/bin/java TestProperty os.arch == ppc64 java.library.path == /usr/java/packages/lib/ppc64:/usr/lib64:/lib64:/lib:/usr/lib $ ./jdk8-ppc64be-before/bin/java TestProperty os.arch == ppc64 java.library.path == /usr/java/packages/lib/ppc64:/usr/lib64:/lib64:/lib:/usr/lib Thanks, Severin
Best regards, Goetz.
-----Original Message----- From: ppc-aix-port-dev <ppc-aix-port-dev-bounces@openjdk.java.net> On Behalf Of Severin Gehwolf Sent: Dienstag, 2. Oktober 2018 12:34 To: Erik Joelsson <erik.joelsson@oracle.com>; hotspot-dev <hotspot- dev@openjdk.java.net>; ppc-aix-port-dev <ppc-aix-port- dev@openjdk.java.net>; build-dev <build-dev@openjdk.java.net> Subject: Re: [PING] [8u] RFR: 8073139: PPC64: User-visible arch directory and os.arch value on ppc64le cause issues with Java tooling
Hi,
Pinging PPC porters. Does this look reasonable to you?
Thanks, Severin
On Fri, 2018-09-28 at 08:56 -0700, Erik Joelsson wrote:
Build changes look ok to me.
/Erik
On 2018-09-26 04:26, Severin Gehwolf wrote:
Hi,
Could I please get reviews for this JDK 8 backport which fixes some tooling issues on Linux ppc64le? Prior this patch, a ppc64le build would report as "ppc64" via os.arch system property which breaks tooling such as maven in as much as if some dependency needs native libraries it would download BE binaries where it actually should download LE binaries. Example for os.arch/java.library.path:
pre: $ ./jdk8-pre-ppc64le/bin/java TestProperty java.library.path =
/usr/java/packages/lib/ppc64:/usr/lib64:/lib64:/lib:/usr/lib
os.arch = ppc64
post: $ ./jdk8-post-ppc64le/bin/java TestProperty java.library.path =
/usr/java/packages/lib/ppc64le:/usr/lib64:/lib64:/lib:/usr/lib
os.arch = ppc64le
Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8073139 webrevs: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~sgehwolf/webrevs/JDK-
8073139/jdk8/01/
Including build-dev for build changes. hotspot-dev and ppc-aix-port-dev for JDK/hotspot changes.
This backport should only have minor differences to the changes in JDK 11. We have been using similar patches in Fedora for months. Thoughts?
Thanks, Severin
Thanks! I'm fine for this to go to 8. Best regards, Goetz.
-----Original Message----- From: Severin Gehwolf <sgehwolf@redhat.com> Sent: Donnerstag, 4. Oktober 2018 16:40 To: Lindenmaier, Goetz <goetz.lindenmaier@sap.com>; Erik Joelsson <erik.joelsson@oracle.com>; hotspot-dev <hotspot- dev@openjdk.java.net>; ppc-aix-port-dev <ppc-aix-port- dev@openjdk.java.net>; build-dev <build-dev@openjdk.java.net> Subject: Re: [PING] [8u] RFR: 8073139: PPC64: User-visible arch directory and os.arch value on ppc64le cause issues with Java tooling
Hi Goetz,
On Tue, 2018-10-02 at 10:40 +0000, Lindenmaier, Goetz wrote: [...]
Did you test this on ppc64 be, too?
I've tested this patch on PPC64 BE Linux now too. There is no change (as expected):
$ ./jdk8-ppc64be-after/bin/java TestProperty os.arch == ppc64 java.library.path == /usr/java/packages/lib/ppc64:/usr/lib64:/lib64:/lib:/usr/lib $ ./jdk8-ppc64be-before/bin/java TestProperty os.arch == ppc64 java.library.path == /usr/java/packages/lib/ppc64:/usr/lib64:/lib64:/lib:/usr/lib
Thanks, Severin
Best regards, Goetz.
-----Original Message----- From: ppc-aix-port-dev <ppc-aix-port-dev-bounces@openjdk.java.net> On Behalf Of Severin Gehwolf Sent: Dienstag, 2. Oktober 2018 12:34 To: Erik Joelsson <erik.joelsson@oracle.com>; hotspot-dev <hotspot- dev@openjdk.java.net>; ppc-aix-port-dev <ppc-aix-port- dev@openjdk.java.net>; build-dev <build-dev@openjdk.java.net> Subject: Re: [PING] [8u] RFR: 8073139: PPC64: User-visible arch directory and os.arch value on ppc64le cause issues with Java tooling
Hi,
Pinging PPC porters. Does this look reasonable to you?
Thanks, Severin
On Fri, 2018-09-28 at 08:56 -0700, Erik Joelsson wrote:
Build changes look ok to me.
/Erik
On 2018-09-26 04:26, Severin Gehwolf wrote:
Hi,
Could I please get reviews for this JDK 8 backport which fixes some tooling issues on Linux ppc64le? Prior this patch, a ppc64le build would report as "ppc64" via os.arch system property which breaks tooling such as maven in as much as if some dependency needs native libraries it would download BE binaries where it actually should download LE binaries. Example for os.arch/java.library.path:
pre: $ ./jdk8-pre-ppc64le/bin/java TestProperty java.library.path =
/usr/java/packages/lib/ppc64:/usr/lib64:/lib64:/lib:/usr/lib
os.arch = ppc64
post: $ ./jdk8-post-ppc64le/bin/java TestProperty java.library.path =
/usr/java/packages/lib/ppc64le:/usr/lib64:/lib64:/lib:/usr/lib
os.arch = ppc64le
Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8073139 webrevs: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~sgehwolf/webrevs/JDK-
8073139/jdk8/01/
Including build-dev for build changes. hotspot-dev and ppc-aix-port-
dev
for JDK/hotspot changes.
This backport should only have minor differences to the changes in JDK 11. We have been using similar patches in Fedora for months. Thoughts?
Thanks, Severin
participants (4)
-
David Holmes
-
Erik Joelsson
-
Lindenmaier, Goetz
-
Severin Gehwolf