RFR(M): 8046471: Use OPENJDK_TARGET_CPU_ARCH instead of legacy value for hotspot ARCH
Erik Joelsson
erik.joelsson at oracle.com
Wed Jun 18 08:14:02 UTC 2014
Looks ok to me.
/Erik
On 2014-06-17 21:11, Mikael Vidstedt wrote:
>
> New webrev here (only the hotspot part, the webrev for top hasn't
> changed):
>
> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~mikael/webrevs/8046471/webrev.02/hotspot/webrev/
>
>
> Comments inline.
>
> On 2014-06-16 19:49, David Holmes wrote:
>> Hi Mikael,
>>
>> Sorry for the delay ...
>>
>> make/aix/makefiles/defs.make:
>>
>> This change doesn't make sense to me:
>>
>> 48 ifneq (,$(findstring $(ARCH), ppc))
>>
>> given that the logic immediately preceding this sets ARCH to either
>> ppc or ppc64 based on ARCH_DATA_MODEL. You seem to be trying to allow
>> for both 32-bit and 64-bit cross-builds but the earlier logic is
>> really precluding this. So it seems to me that the changes in this
>> file are completely unnecessary (or else the earlier logic also needs
>> changing).
>
> Indeed, that is correct - I missed the fact that ARCH is always
> overriden to be either ppc or ppc64. The old logic is unnecessarily
> hard to follow, but I guess that's in line with our hotspot Makefiles
> in general ;)
>
> I'll revert the changes to the file and add a mental note to self and
> others that linux appears to be the only platform where the incoming
> value of ARCH is actually honored - it's ignored/overridden on
> Solaris, BSD and AIX.
>
>> make/linux/makefiles/defs.make
>>
>> This block:
>>
>> 86 # i686/i586 and amd64/x86_64
>> 87 ifneq (,$(findstring $(ARCH), amd64 x86_64 i686 i586))
>> 88 ifeq ($(ARCH_DATA_MODEL), 64)
>> 89 ARCH_DATA_MODEL = 64
>> 90 MAKE_ARGS += LP64=1
>> 91 PLATFORM = linux-amd64
>> 92 VM_PLATFORM = linux_amd64
>> 93 HS_ARCH = x86
>> 94 else
>> 95 ARCH_DATA_MODEL = 32
>> 96 PLATFORM = linux-i586
>> 97 VM_PLATFORM = linux_i486
>> 98 HS_ARCH = x86
>> 99 # We have to reset ARCH to i686 since SRCARCH relies on it
>> 100 ARCH = i686
>> 101 endif
>> 102 endif
>>
>> seems to allow the user to try and do a 64-bit build on a 32-bit
>> build machine. Not sure if that would get caught in an earlier sanity
>> check? (Same is true for the sparc block).
>
> While the changes are primarily just intended to cut down on the
> duplication I don't immediately see the reason why we wouldn't want to
> allow compiling a 64-bit VM from a 32-bit machine? We're cross
> compiling all sorts of platforms, so why not allow this if the
> compiler supports it? I'd prefer to keep it this way.
>
>> Also I don't think the following is actually true:
>>
>> # We have to reset ARCH to i686 since SRCARCH relies on it
>> ARCH = i686
>>
>> As long as ARCH is not amd64 and not x86_64 any 32-bit x86
>> architecture designator will simply map to a SRCARCH of x86, as per
>> defs.make:
>>
>> SRCARCH = $(ARCH/$(filter sparc sparc64 ia64 amd64 x86_64 arm
>> ppc zero,$(ARCH)))
>> ARCH/ = x86
>> ARCH/sparc = sparc
>> ARCH/sparc64= sparc
>> ARCH/ia64 = ia64
>> ARCH/amd64 = x86
>> ARCH/x86_64 = x86
>> ARCH/ppc64 = ppc
>> ARCH/ppc = ppc
>> ARCH/arm = arm
>> ARCH/zero = zero
>
> Indeed, I fully agree - as long as it's not { sparc, sparc64, ia64,
> ppc64, ppc, arm, zero } it will map to x86 anyway. I thought about
> cleaning that up before I sent out the first webrev, but soon found
> myself doing way more cleanup than was healthy for this specific
> change. However, since I had to update this change anyway I removed
> the ARCH reset part.
>
> Cheers,
> Mikael
>
>>
>>
>> Cheers,
>> David
>>
>> On 17/06/2014 6:17 AM, Mikael Vidstedt wrote:
>>>
>>> Thanks Erik. Another review please?
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> Mikael
>>>
>>> On 2014-06-12 23:56, Erik Joelsson wrote:
>>>> Looks fine to me.
>>>>
>>>> /Erik
>>>>
>>>> On 2014-06-12 23:18, Mikael Vidstedt wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> I have now verified that the changes work just fine for the platforms
>>>>> we build and test - both from the top level and when building hotspot
>>>>> only. Taking suggestions on other tests to perform. And it would be
>>>>> great if somebody could test the changes on on aix/ppc.
>>>>>
>>>>> So, kindly asking for "real"/final reviews of the changes:
>>>>>
>>>>> top:
>>>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~mikael/webrevs/8046471/webrev.01/top/webrev/
>>>>>
>>>>> hotspot:
>>>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~mikael/webrevs/8046471/webrev.01/hotspot/webrev/
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>> Mikael
>>>>>
>>>>> On 2014-06-10 22:53, Mikael Vidstedt wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> David,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks for the feedback. Essentially the logic in the
>>>>>> make/<os>/makefiles/defs.make files needs to recognize and deal with
>>>>>> two different use cases:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 1. ARCH being set by the JDK build system to the value of
>>>>>> OPENJDK_TARGET_CPU_ARCH, or
>>>>>> 2. no ARCH being set, in which case it needs to be populated -
>>>>>> typically from uname
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Since Solaris and bsd both override ARCH they do not care about
>>>>>> OPENJDK_TARGET_CPU_ARCH and effectively always go through case 2.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Linux/x86 is where most of the difference (and confusion) is, but I
>>>>>> think aix/ppc64 will also change slightly since the ARCH value will
>>>>>> go from ppc64 to ppc. I've tried to make the relevant changes, but I
>>>>>> cannot verify that they actually work. cc:ing the ppc-aix list in
>>>>>> the hope that somebody can help out with that.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Summing it up, I have the following two webrevs:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> top:
>>>>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~mikael/webrevs/8046471/webrev.01/top/webrev/
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> hotspot:
>>>>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~mikael/webrevs/8046471/webrev.01/hotspot/webrev/
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> With these changes I can build the normal platforms, but more
>>>>>> verification is needed - esp. building hotspot only. Meanwhile
>>>>>> feedback is much appreciated!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>> Mikael
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 2014-06-10 19:45, David Holmes wrote:
>>>>>>> Hi Mikael,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This seems a reasonable proposal to me. We have an over-abundance
>>>>>>> of "arch" variables and values, so reducing that is a good aim.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> As you note the main flow-on effect here is that the hotspot
>>>>>>> makefiles have to be updated for the cases where
>>>>>>> OPENJDK_TARGET_CPU_ARCH and OPENJDK_TARGET_CPU_LEGACY differ so
>>>>>>> that it still sets LIBARCH, BUILDARCH, SRCARCH correctly. I think
>>>>>>> only x86 has that issue.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Wouldn't it be nice if we could get rid of i386, i586, i686 etc
>>>>>>> both internally and in the build artifacts and bundles!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>> David
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 11/06/2014 10:11 AM, Mikael Vidstedt wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> All,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I need some feedback and comments on the below fix:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8046471
>>>>>>>> Webrev:
>>>>>>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~mikael/webrevs/8046471/webrev.00/webrev/
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Background:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> When configuring the hotspot build the build system sets up the
>>>>>>>> ARCH
>>>>>>>> variable to reflect the target cpu. Currently the value is
>>>>>>>> initialized
>>>>>>>> to OPENJDK_TARGET_CPU_LEGACY, which is the internal legacy cpu
>>>>>>>> name. For
>>>>>>>> example, on x86 64-bit this is amd64 on linux (but x86_64 on mac).
>>>>>>>> The
>>>>>>>> goal in the new (JDK) build system is to have the "legacy" value
>>>>>>>> gradually removed in favor of the other variables.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Discussion:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The two candidate variables to base ARCH on are as far as I can
>>>>>>>> tell
>>>>>>>> OPENJDK_TARGET_CPU and OPENJDK_TARGET_CPU_ARCH. Of the two
>>>>>>>> OPENJDK_TARGET_CPU_ARCH is the more "stable" one, with a
>>>>>>>> single, well
>>>>>>>> defined value per cpu family { arm, ppc, s390, sparc, x86 }.
>>>>>>>> Together
>>>>>>>> with ARCH_DATA_MODEL/LP64 that information should be enough for
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> Hotspot build system to do its thing. Note: ARCH is currently
>>>>>>>> ignored on
>>>>>>>> solaris and bsd - it's overridden at the top of the respective
>>>>>>>> make/<os>/makefiles/defs.make files.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Before I go too far with this though I'd like to get some
>>>>>>>> feedback on
>>>>>>>> whether or not this is the right approach and what the exact value
>>>>>>>> should be. Depending on the outcome of that the Hotspot build
>>>>>>>> system may
>>>>>>>> have to be updated for some platforms to support the new value(s).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>> Mikael
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>
More information about the build-dev
mailing list