RFR: AARCH64: 8064357: Top-level JDK changes

[Vladimir Kozlov]

The history is preserved since patch is applied above config.sub.
I did 'hg copy config.sub autoconf-config.sub' and then applied the patch.

And there are only 2 changesets in config.sub:

changeset:   574:b66c81dfa291
user:        ohair
date:        Mon Jan 14 16:38:25 2013 -0800
summary:     8005284: build-infra: nonstandard copyright headers under 
common/autoconf/build-aux

changeset:   423:e1830598f0b7
parent:      417:42f275168fa5
user:        ohair
date:        Tue Apr 10 08:18:28 2012 -0700
summary:     7074397: Build infrastructure changes (makefile re-write)

Thanks,
Vladimir


On 11/21/14 11:31 AM, Dean Long wrote:
> One minor comment:  do we want to preserve the history in the new
> config.sub,
> or check it in as a new file?
>
> dl
>
> On 11/21/2014 10:03 AM, Magnus Ihse Bursie wrote:
>>
>> On 2014-11-21 18:02, Andrew Haley wrote:
>>> On 11/21/2014 03:46 PM, Magnus Ihse Bursie wrote:
>>>> 1) Comment in config.sub identifies it as config.guess.
>>>>
>>>> 2) As as understand it, your first attempt is to just dispatch through
>>>> to autoconf-config.sub if there is no aarch64 arguments. Good! However,
>>>> the code could be made clearer: The dot is small and some comment
>>>> clarifying that we will exit after this line might be helpful to the
>>>> reader. Also, you're using a $sub_args which is not defined. This will
>>>> not break, but it makes the reader confused. (I suspect copy/paste
>>>> glitch.)
>>>>
>>>> 3) The webrev indicates that the original config.sub was renamed to
>>>> config.sub.orig, instead of autoconf-config.sub. But since that is how
>>>> it is called in the new config.sub wrapper, the patch is unlikely to
>>>> work. When you test this, make sure you have no lingering files in your
>>>> workspace that can mess up the results. (e.g. no "?" files in hg
>>>> status).
>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~aph/aarch64-8064357-5/
>>
>> Looks good to me.
>>
>> Thanks for working through all these iterations!
>>
>> /Magnus
>