[OpenJDK 2D-Dev] RFR(XXS): 8057934: Upgrade to LittleCMS 2.6 breaks AIX build

[Volker Simonis]

Thanks a lot Phil and Sergey!

I've just pushed the change.

Regards,
Volker


On Tue, Sep 9, 2014 at 8:37 PM, Sergey Bylokhov
<Sergey.Bylokhov at oracle.com> wrote:
> The fix looks fine to me too.
>
>
> On 09.09.2014 22:18, Phil Race wrote:
>>
>> Approved
>>
>> -phil.
>>
>> On 09/09/2014 11:11 AM, Volker Simonis wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I've updated my webrev to reflect the fix which has now been pushed to
>>> LittleCMS mainline. It renames SNONE to SUNDEFINED :-
>>>
>>> https://github.com/mm2/Little-CMS/commit/5bc4f52ff6b2090863d824827a871cd6274e36e4
>>>
>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~simonis/webrevs/8057934.v1/
>>>
>>> Pease review.
>>>
>>> Thank you and best regards,
>>> Volker
>>>
>>> PS: and I've verified that SUNDEFINED isn't defined on AIX...
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, Sep 9, 2014 at 3:51 PM, Volker Simonis <volker.simonis at gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> could you please review the following tiny fix for an AIX build
>>>> problem intruduced by "8056122: Upgrade JDK to LittleCMS 2.6":
>>>>
>>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~simonis/webrevs/8057934/
>>>> https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8057934
>>>>
>>>> The problem is that the new version of LittleCMS now includes
>>>> "pthread.h" in "lcms2_internal.h". Unfortunalty on AIX, "pthread.h" in
>>>> turn includes "sys/proc.h" which uncoditionally defines a preprocessor
>>>> constant "SNONE".
>>>>
>>>> In "cmscgats.c" this preprocessor constant "SNONE" collides with the
>>>> enum value "SNONE" from the SYMBOL enumaration.
>>>>
>>>> The only solution I see is to rename "SNONE" in "cmscgats.c". I
>>>> renamed it to "SVOID" but would be happy with any other name.
>>>> Fortunately "SNONE" is only used locally in the file "cmscgats.c", so
>>>> renaming it won't have any impact on other files.
>>>>
>>>> Once this bug is fixed I'll report the problem upstream to LittleCMS
>>>> and try to get the fix in there.
>>>>
>>>> Finally, there's on last point I wan to bring up. I realized that
>>>> "8056122: Upgrade JDK to LittleCMS 2.6" went from jdk9-client right
>>>> into 8u-dev. That's why we caught this error only in 8u-dev and not
>>>> already in jdk9-dev which we build on a daily basis on all our porting
>>>> platforms. Is my assumption that changes have to through jdk9-dev
>>>> before they get back ported wrong or has this been an exeption?
>>>>
>>>> Thank you and best regards,
>>>> Volker
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Best regards, Sergey.
>