RFR: 8073139 PPC64: User-visible arch directory and os.arch value on ppc64le cause issues with Java tooling

[David Holmes]

On 11/12/2015 2:15 PM, Alexander Smundak wrote:
> I have jcheck enabled, so I am surprised that the absence of the
> Reviewed-by: field was not flagged. Anyways, here's the new set:

Not sure what is going on with your jcheck setup but the formatting is 
still wrong:

- the changeset "user" must be OpenJDK username not email address
- reviewers must be OpenJDK user names not email addresses
- contributed-by attribution should be simple email address or the 
following is also allowed:
   Andrew Hughes <gnu.andrew at redhat.com>

Sorry.

David
-----

> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~asmundak/8073139/hotspot/webrev.04
> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~asmundak/8073139/jdk/webrev.04
> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~asmundak/8073139/root/webrev.04
>
> Note that I don't have access to the big-endian PowerPC64. The
> original patch was verified by goetz.lindenmaier at sap.com, but it has
> changed since. Goetz, can you verify that the new patch still works?
>
> Sasha
>
> On Wed, Dec 9, 2015 at 8:59 PM, David Holmes <david.holmes at oracle.com> wrote:
>> On 10/12/2015 4:16 AM, Alexander Smundak wrote:
>>>
>>> I am confused -- is there anything you want me to change in the existing
>>> set:
>>>
>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~asmundak/8073139/hotspot/webrev.03
>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~asmundak/8073139/jdk/webrev.03
>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~asmundak/8073139/root/webrev.03
>>
>>
>> Yes they need to be created using the correct, jcheck[1] compliant, commit
>> messages:
>>
>> http://openjdk.java.net/guide/producingChangeset.html
>>
>> Mainly Reviewers seem to be missing - but I'm also not sure other details
>> are jcheck compliant.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> David
>>
>> [1] http://openjdk.java.net/projects/code-tools/jcheck/
>>
>>
>>> Sasha
>>>
>>> On Tue, Dec 8, 2015 at 7:10 PM, David Holmes <david.holmes at oracle.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I can sponsor for you Sasha. Just email me the changeset, or a link
>>>> thereto.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> David
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 9/12/2015 3:44 AM, Alexander Smundak wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Thank you for the review.
>>>>> If everyone involved is satisfied with the patch, I need a sponsor.
>>>>>
>>>>> Sasha
>>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, Dec 7, 2015 at 8:46 PM, David Holmes <david.holmes at oracle.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 8/12/2015 1:44 PM, Alexander Smundak wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It is achievable by adding a small ppc-specific check to the
>>>>>>> common/autoconf/platform.m4:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> @@ -282,6 +282,8 @@
>>>>>>>        elif test "x$OPENJDK_TARGET_OS" != xmacosx && test
>>>>>>> "x$OPENJDK_TARGET_CPU" = xx86_64; then
>>>>>>>          # On all platforms except MacOSX replace x86_64 with amd64.
>>>>>>>          OPENJDK_TARGET_CPU_LEGACY="amd64"
>>>>>>> +  elif test "x$OPENJDK_TARGET_CPU" = xppc64le; then
>>>>>>> +    OPENJDK_TARGET_CPU_LEGACY="ppc64"
>>>>>>>        fi
>>>>>>>        AC_SUBST(OPENJDK_TARGET_CPU_LEGACY)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> However, there is a code in make/Images.gmk using
>>>>>>> OPENJDK_TARGET_CPU_LEGACY
>>>>>>>       $(call info-file-item, "OS_ARCH", "$(OPENJDK_TARGET_CPU_LEGACY)")
>>>>>>> so that the 'release' file in the image directory will now have
>>>>>>> JAVA_VERSION="9"
>>>>>>> JAVA_FULL_VERSION="9-internal+0-2015-12-07-190811.asmundak.hs-rt"
>>>>>>> OS_NAME="Linux"
>>>>>>> OS_VERSION="2.6"
>>>>>>> OS_ARCH="ppc64"
>>>>>>>             ^^^^^^^^
>>>>>>> SOURCE=..,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> instead of "ppc64le".
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If someone can tell me which other variable I should use to achieve
>>>>>>> that without changing the contents of the 'release' file on other
>>>>>>> platforms, I'll be grateful.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Okay never mind - and thanks for looking into this. I see now this is
>>>>>> set
>>>>>> via:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ./autoconf/flags.m4:  COMMON_CCXXFLAGS_JDK="$COMMON_CCXXFLAGS_JDK
>>>>>> -DARCH='\"$OPENJDK_TARGET_CPU_LEGACY\"' -D$OPENJDK_TARGET_CPU_LEGACY"
>>>>>>
>>>>>> so there is no way to add a second value without introducing some
>>>>>> additional
>>>>>> variable. At the hotspot level it could be handled differently if we
>>>>>> had
>>>>>> a
>>>>>> platform_ppc64le file, as it could just be added to the SYSDEFS.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>> David