RFR (M): 8024265: Enable new build on AIX (top level part)

[Vladimir Kozlov]

Done.

I have to regenerate generated-configure.sh to sync times with closed 
version.
I ran jdk control build in JPRTwith bootstap to verify that it is not 
broken. And I got jdk product build failure on linux-x64:

/bin/sh: 
/opt/jprt/T/P1/193135.vkozlov/s/build/linux-x86_64-normal-server-release/bootcycle-build/images/j2sdk-image/db/README-JDK.html: 
No such file or directory
/bin/sh: 
/opt/jprt/T/P1/193135.vkozlov/s/build/linux-x86_64-normal-server-release/bootcycle-build/images/j2sdk-image/db/3RDPARTY: 
No such file or directory

But I assume it is not related to these changes because fastdebug build 
passed.

Thanks,
Vladimir

On 9/12/13 6:46 AM, Volker Simonis wrote:
> Thank you Erik!
>
> Vladimir, could you please push
> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~simonis/webrevs/8024265.v4 (before we get
> the next merge conflicts:)
>
> Thanks,
> Volker
>
>
> On Thu, Sep 12, 2013 at 2:39 PM, Erik Joelsson <erik.joelsson at oracle.com> wrote:
>> Magnus left for the day, but I'm ok with you pushing this to the stage area.
>>
>> /Erik
>>
>>
>> On 2013-09-12 14:29, Volker Simonis wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Magnus,
>>>
>>> thanks for doing "JDK-8024665 Move open changes for JDK-8020411 to
>>> closed source"!
>>>
>>> Can you now please give Vladimir the GO signal (from a
>>> build-perspective) to integrate my changes (from
>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~simonis/webrevs/8024265.v4/) into the
>>> ppc-aix-port/stage repository?
>>>
>>> Actually my changes revert 8020411 as well. This means that when
>>> 8024665 will flow into our staging repository, we would have to
>>> manually resolve platform.m4 to our version which we checked in, but
>>> that should be OK.
>>>
>>> I'd really appreciate if we could push my change now, otherwise we
>>> would have to wait another couple of weeks until 8024665 goes from
>>> build -> main -> stage.
>>>
>>> Thank you and best regards,
>>> Volker
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, Sep 12, 2013 at 10:11 AM, Magnus Ihse Bursie
>>> <magnus.ihse.bursie at oracle.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 2013-09-11 18:45, Volker Simonis wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Argh! It conflicts with 8020411
>>>>> (http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~erikj/8020411/webrev.root.01/) from your
>>>>> last jdk8->stage synchronisation.
>>>>>
>>>>> @Magnus, Erik : it seems that '8020411' needed a similar 'feature' to
>>>>> my actual change but did it without abstracting over the name of the
>>>>> "compilers target bits" flag name vs. its actual value. Unfortunately
>>>>> all the users of the change 8020411 are in the closed sources. I'd
>>>>> really like to stay with my solution (because I think that's the most
>>>>> general one) and resolve the merge conflicts with 8020411 by
>>>>> eliminating TARGET_BITS_FLAG which can now be replaced by
>>>>> "${COMPILER_TARGET_BITS_FLAG}${OPENJDK_TARGET_CPU_BITS}.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I see. When looking more closely in the fix for JDK-8020411, it turned
>>>> out
>>>> that it could do with some improvements:
>>>> a) since it really only applies to the closed sources, it could (and
>>>> should)
>>>> be done only in the closed sources.
>>>> b) it was actually incorrect, since it removed the ADDED_*FLAGS
>>>> variables,
>>>> which are needed for later use to check for incorrect additions to
>>>> *FLAGS.
>>>>
>>>> I am sorry your patch has become caught in this messiness. :(
>>>> Nevertheless,
>>>> I think the best way forward is that I create a new patch, that  reverts
>>>> the
>>>> JDK-8020411 in the open sources and re-implements them in the closed
>>>> sources. I agree that your solution is better, and what we should have in
>>>> the open sources. You shouldn't have to care about the TARGET_BITS_FLAG,
>>>> it
>>>> is an internal hack.
>>>>
>>>> I'll start working on it immediately.
>>>>
>>>> /Magnus
>>
>>