RFC: architecture define probably masks variable names in header files

[Kelly O'Hair]

Ignore the java code of course, but in all the *.c, *.h, *.cpp, and *.hpp files
I'd look for uses of the symbols: i386, i586, sparc, sparcv9, amd64, x86, x64, and ia64.

I suspect you won't find many, but you may get lots of false hits.

I'd be happy to help, and in fact someone on the Sun side would have to help to verify
that the misc. closed native files we have don't also have a problem with this.
But if someone could do the initial openjdk source scan and preliminary analysis,
I'd be happy to work with that person to get the changes integrated.

-kto

Ted Neward wrote:
> I won't speak for them, but based on Kelly's comments, you may be the guy on
> the spot to do that verification. :-)
> 
> Isn't open source fun? :-)
> 
> I would suggest this: do a grep looking for where that macro is used, and
> see if removing it entirely has any detrimental effects. That is, pull it,
> do a build, then run the jtreg test harness and see what breaks. (I don't
> know of any other comprehensive unit test suite for the JDK beyond jtreg.)
> If that passes, diff the sources, send 'em to... Kelly? This list? Somebody
> else or someplace else? And others can verify that they're not seeing
> breakage either.
> 
> That's how I'd do it, anyway, in the absence of some more official guidance
> from Sun.
> 
> Ted Neward
> Java, .NET, XML Services
> Consulting, Teaching, Speaking, Writing
> http://www.tedneward.com
>  
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Christian Thalinger [mailto:twisti at complang.tuwien.ac.at]
>> Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 1:20 PM
>> To: Ted Neward
>> Cc: 'build-dev'
>> Subject: RE: RFC: architecture define probably masks variable names in
>> header files
>>
>> On Wed, 2008-01-23 at 11:14 -0800, Ted Neward wrote:
>>> This may be an area where you have to implement the fix and submit it
>> as a
>>> patch, because I can see the developers at Sun not having the
>> bandwidth to
>>> take time away from the other things they're working on to take care
>> of this
>>> themselves--they're horribly underresourced (if you'll pardon the
>>> verbization) from what I understand.
>>>
>>> What change would you suggest, and how deeply would it ripple through
>> the
>>> code base?
>> Well, the problem I see is, I don't know the historical reasons how
>> stuff was done and I don't know where these defines are used.  A grep
>> can help here, but the knowledge of a long-year Sun employee would
>> definitely help a lot.
>>
>> Of course I can try to make a patch, but definitely I'll need help to
>> verify that what I've done is correct (btw. IcedTea people will also be
>> of great help here).
>>
>> - twisti
>>
>> No virus found in this incoming message.
>> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
>> Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.19.9/1237 - Release Date:
>> 1/22/2008 11:04 AM
>>
> 
> No virus found in this outgoing message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition. 
> Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.19.9/1237 - Release Date: 1/22/2008
> 11:04 AM
>  
>