[aarch64-port-dev ] RFR: 8168503 JEP 297: Unified arm32/arm64 Port

[Andrew Haley]

On 16/03/17 18:03, Bob Vandette wrote:

> I agree that this is an issue but I’m not sure that it’s a show
> stopper.
> 
> The Oracle build will not have OpenJDK in the version string which
> will help to differentiate our binaries from OpenJDK builds.

Right, like I said.

> The bug database field that I think you are describing is only an
> indication of the architecture that a bug can be reproduced on.  It
> is not meant to describe the sources that were used to produce the
> binaries or where the binaries came from.  That should to be
> specified elsewhere in the bug report.

OK.  I would surely have tried to insist that the version strings were
different for our two ports at the time your port was committed, but I
blew my chance.

> I don’t like the idea of listing arm64 in the version string since
> we are only using arm64 internally to trigger the use of the hotspot
> “arm” directory.  We’d also end up with lots of incorrect bug
> entries since folks will fail to use arm64 to report a bug in the
> Oracle 64-bit ARM port running on an aarch64 based system.
> 
> If we start putting build configuration information in the version
> string, then where do we stop.

It's going to be rather horrible, though.  How do we reproduce a bug
if we don't know what port is causing the bug?  How do we even ask the
question if we don't know what the ports are called?  I always assumed
we were "aarch64" and you were "arm64".  How are we to ask a user if
we can't tell them what to look for?

Even if we don't change anything in OpenJDK itself, we'll still have
to agree on a label to use in the bug database.  I don't know what
labels we should use, but we should agree on them now.  Do you have
any preferences?

Andrew.