[RFR] jdk9.0.4+12 + functionality

[Andrew Dinn]

On 17/04/18 13:26, Bob Vandette wrote:
>> On Apr 17, 2018, at 4:23 AM, Andrew Dinn <adinn at redhat.com> wrote:
>>
>> However, another reason to not go that route is that the AArch32 port
>> was derived from the AArch64 port which was, in turn, derived from the
>> x86 port. Whatever the provenance of the (32- or 64-bit) arm code it
>> differs in significant ways from the x86 code.
> 
> 
> The 32-bit ARM port has been around since the JDK 8 days, although
> the sources were maintained in the closed forest.  This port was not
> derived from the x86 port or the aarch64 port.  The aarch64 port was
> derived from the arm32 port in order to make it easier to maintain both ports.

I don't think you can be talking about he same thing as me here.

Andrew Haley and I wrote almost all the existing AArch64 code. We based
it on the x86 code. We didn't have access to Oracle's 32 bit arm port
until it was essentially complete and integrated into JDK9.

The code in the AArch32 project was also not derived from Oracle's code.
Development on that code started before Oracle's 32-bit arm code was opened.

> The 32-bit ARM port has been well tested for many many release including
> leading up to the completion of JDK 9 and has been used in countless embedded
> products.  It was a last minute decision by Oracle to discontinue the delivery of
> binaries so the port is pretty up-to-date.
I don't disagree. However, I still stand by what I said: the changes
made in Oracle's open sourced 32-bit arm port are not going to help
those maintaining the AArch32 port as much as the changes made to x86
code will. You may have a different opinion over that but the history is
as I set out above.

regards,


Andrew Dinn
-----------
Senior Principal Software Engineer
Red Hat UK Ltd
Registered in England and Wales under Company Registration No. 03798903
Directors: Michael Cunningham, Michael ("Mike") O'Neill, Eric Shander