Create a jvm.cfg for zero on 32 bit architectures

[David Holmes]

On 14/08/2013 1:53 AM, Omair Majid wrote:
> On 08/12/2013 12:51 AM, David Holmes wrote:
>> Hi Omair,
>>
>> On 10/08/2013 1:25 AM, Omair Majid wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> OpenJDK fails to build with zero currently on 32 bit architectures.
>>> There's a non-architecture-specific compilation error that I fixed [1].
>>> That makes zero build/run on 64-bit architectures. However, the build
>>> still fails on 32-bit. The error says that a jvm.cfg can not be found
>>> for zero.
>>>
>>> The following webrev fixes it:
>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~omajid/webrevs/zero-jvm-config/00/
>>>
>>> It creates a jvm.cfg that's identical to the one used for 64-bit [2].
>>
>> I'm not sure this is the "right" way to fix this as I would think zero
>> should always just use the jvm.cfg that is in the repository. But the
>> existing logic makes that awkward. I think what we should have is
>> something like (I can't recall the right way to express this off the top
>> of my head):
>>
>> CLIENT_AND_SERVER := ...
>>
>> COPY_JVM_CFG_FILE := CLIENT_AND_SERVER == true || BITS == 64 ||
>>                       JVM_VARIANT_ZERO == true
>>
>> ifeq ($(COPY_JVM_CFG_FILE),true)
>>       $(JVMCFG): $(JVMCFG_SRC)
>>           $(call install-file)
>> else
>>       $(JVMCFG):
>>           $(MKDIR) -p $(@D)
>>           $(RM) $(@)
>>
>>       # Now check for other permutations
>> ...
>>
>> Your change is less intrusive in the sense that it can't affect the
>> other JVM variants.
>
> Yeah, I wanted to avoid touching anything else since I cant test all of
> these combinations locally. But you are right, the suggested approach is
> more readable.
>
> Updated webrev:
> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~omajid/webrevs/zero-jvm-config/01/

That looks good to me.

>> That aside do you not want to also address zeroshark? Or is that only
>> 64-bit?
>
> zeroshark should work on both 32-bit and 64 bit. That said, there's
> likely other problems with it at the moment. I don't see a jvm.cfg file
> for shark, so I am not sure which jvm.cfg it is meant to use. I suspect
> it also has compilation problems but I haven't attempted building it
> recently - it's quite picky about the right llvm version (2.9, last I
> checked) and I don't have that handy.
>
> Would it be okay if I were to come back to zeroshark later?

Sure.

Thanks,
David
-----


> Thanks,
> Omair
>