[RFR] jdk9.0.4+12 + functionality

[Andrey Petushkov]

Dear Ed,

I’ve reworked the webrevs to address the problems:
- the base is now jdk9-updates repo set. First set of patches brings current aarch32-jdk9 project changes. The second adds compilers and stuff. The patches apply cleanly for me
- —with-cpu-port flag is functional. (“arm” means cpu/arm, “aarch32” or absent selects cpu/aarch32). I’ve successfully build all 4 arm ports. (I’ve unified selection of Oracle’s port under “arm” flag value for both 32 and 64-bit versions, contrary to existing “arm64" value. Please let me know if you consider it’s inappropriate)
- copyrights are in the same style as everybody’s else. copyrights removed for the files which do not carry functional changes

The webrevs are at http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~apetushkov/aarch32-jdk9-try2/ <http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~apetushkov/aarch32-jdk9-try2/>
The code is slightly different to those I’ve sent before, we’ve fixed a performance problem there
Verified with jtreg

CompactStrings intrinsics are finished, pending QA. Webrev will follow once these changes are pushed

Thank you,
Andrey

PS. Sorry for taking so long, it’s mostly of aforementioned compact string intrinsics. It’s really hard to squeeze performance boost out of Arm v7 cores.


> On 11 Apr 2018, at 21:11, Edward Nevill <edward.nevill at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> On Wed, 2018-04-11 at 18:57 +0300, Andrey Petushkov wrote:
>>> On 11 Apr 2018, at 18:46, Edward Nevill <edward.nevill at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>> I'll try the c2 build next,
>>> Ed.
>> 
> 
> The c2 build seems to build OK and I have done a few basic tests on the resultant image.
> 
> I notice that the default build is 'aarch32' which means that there is no way to specify the 'arm' build.
> 
> From the help
> 
>  --with-cpu-port         specify sources to use for Hotspot 64-bit ARM port
>                          (arm64,aarch64,aarch32) [aarch64]
> 
> If the default is aarch32 then there needs to be another option 'arm' to allow you to build the existing arm32 c2.
> 
> 
> I am uneasy about your copyright notices:-
> 
> +// This file is a derivative work resulting from (and including) modifications
> +// made by Azul Systems, Inc.  The dates of such changes are 2013-2018.
> +// Copyright 2013-2018 Azul Systems, Inc.  All Rights Reserved.
> +//
> +// Please contact Azul Systems, 385 Moffett Park Drive, Suite 115, Sunnyvale,
> +// CA 94089 USA or visit www.azul.com if you need additional information or
> +// have any questions.
> 
> If you are unable to use the existing copyright format, viz
> 
> * Copyright (c) 2014, Red Hat Inc. All rights reserved.
> * Copyright (c) 2015, Linaro Ltd. All rights reserved.
> * DO NOT ALTER OR REMOVE COPYRIGHT NOTICES OR THIS FILE HEADER.
> 
> then the copyright notices will have to be reviewed by someone in authority at Oracle.
> 
> Also, I notice in some cases you have applied copyright notices where there are no changes to the file (other than the copyright notices).
> 
> I need to spend more time looking through your patch in more detail. Unfortunately I am at work for the next few days so it is likely to be the start of next week before I can have a detailed look at this.
> 
> All the best,
> Ed.
>