[patch] add zero support for x86_64-linux-gnux32 target

Fri Aug 31 11:40:24 UTC 2018

Yes, that looks reasonable! If you want to, you can push this + Klose's fix. 

/Magnus

> 31 aug. 2018 kl. 13:25 skrev John Paul Adrian Glaubitz <glaubitz at physik.fu-berlin.de>:
> 
> Hi Magnus!
> 
> I just tested it and the following change in make/autoconf/flags.m4 is
> necessary as well so that gcc is not called with "-m64":
> 
> diff -r 18afb2097ada -r 1f28530b1f46 make/autoconf/flags.m4
> --- a/make/autoconf/flags.m4    Fri Aug 31 11:43:06 2018 +0200
> +++ b/make/autoconf/flags.m4    Fri Aug 31 12:50:02 2018 +0200
> @@ -241,7 +241,8 @@
>   elif test "x$TOOLCHAIN_TYPE" = xsolstudio; then
>     MACHINE_FLAG="-m${OPENJDK_TARGET_CPU_BITS}"
>   elif test "x$TOOLCHAIN_TYPE" = xgcc || test "x$TOOLCHAIN_TYPE" = xclang; then
> -    if test "x$OPENJDK_TARGET_CPU_ARCH" = xx86 ||
> +    if test "x$OPENJDK_TARGET_CPU_ARCH" = xx86 &&
> +        test "x$OPENJDK_TARGET_CPU" != xx32 ||
>         test "x$OPENJDK_TARGET_CPU_ARCH" = xsparc ||
>         test "x$OPENJDK_TARGET_CPU_ARCH" = xppc; then
>       MACHINE_FLAG="-m${OPENJDK_TARGET_CPU_BITS}"
> 
> Adrian
> 
>> On 08/31/2018 10:43 AM, Magnus Ihse Bursie wrote:
>> The necroposter strikes back! :-)
>> 
>> I'm currently trying to fix or close all long standing bugs on infrastructure/build, and now the time has come to JDK-8165440.
>> 
>> This patch had a bit of bad timing when it was posted, since it could not be accepted into mainline due to feature freeze, and there were no other repo to accept it.
>> 
>> I adjusted the patch to the current code base (which means that most parts of it were not needed). What remains are two files. However, I can't test if this works. Matthias, can you verify that this is a working patch for jdk/jdk for the gnux32 target? If so, I'll sponsor this patch.
>> 
>> diff --git a/make/autoconf/platform.m4 b/make/autoconf/platform.m4
>> --- a/make/autoconf/platform.m4
>> +++ b/make/autoconf/platform.m4
>> @@ -35,6 +35,10 @@
>>        VAR_CPU_ARCH=x86
>>        VAR_CPU_BITS=64
>>        VAR_CPU_ENDIAN=little
>> +      case "$host" in *x32)
>> +        VAR_CPU=x32
>> +        VAR_CPU_BITS=32
>> +      esac
>>        ;;
>>      i?86)
>>        VAR_CPU=x86
>> @@ -455,6 +459,8 @@
>>      HOTSPOT_$1_CPU_DEFINE=IA32
>>    elif test "x$OPENJDK_$1_CPU" = xx86_64; then
>>      HOTSPOT_$1_CPU_DEFINE=AMD64
>> +  elif test "x$OPENJDK_$1_CPU" = xx32; then
>> +    HOTSPOT_$1_CPU_DEFINE=X32
>>    elif test "x$OPENJDK_$1_CPU" = xsparcv9; then
>>      HOTSPOT_$1_CPU_DEFINE=SPARC
>>    elif test "x$OPENJDK_$1_CPU" = xaarch64; then
>> diff --git a/src/hotspot/os/linux/os_linux.cpp b/src/hotspot/os/linux/os_linux.cpp
>> --- a/src/hotspot/os/linux/os_linux.cpp
>> +++ b/src/hotspot/os/linux/os_linux.cpp
>> @@ -1742,7 +1742,7 @@
>> 
>>  #if  (defined IA32)
>>    static  Elf32_Half running_arch_code=EM_386;
>> -#elif   (defined AMD64)
>> +#elif   (defined AMD64) || defined(X32)
>>    static  Elf32_Half running_arch_code=EM_X86_64;
>>  #elif  (defined IA64)
>>    static  Elf32_Half running_arch_code=EM_IA_64;
>> 
>> /Magnus
>> 
>>> On 2016-09-06 01:01, David Holmes wrote:
>>> Hi Severin, Matthias,
>>> 
>>>> On 5/09/2016 10:16 PM, Severin Gehwolf wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, 2016-09-05 at 14:03 +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
>>>>> The attached patch adds support for building zero for the x86_64-
>>>>> linux-gnux32
>>>>> target, having changes in the build system, hotspot and jdk.
>>>>> 
>>>>>  - the build system currently only derives the target from
>>>>>    the cpu in PLATFORM_EXTRACT_VARS_FROM_CPU; that is not enough
>>>>>    for the new target, which only differs by the ending of the
>>>>>    triplet. However the $host macro should be available anywhere.
>>>>> 
>>>>>  - the hotspot part just handles the new "cpu"
>>>>> 
>>>>>  - GensrcX11Wrappers.gmk assumes that there is a black/white
>>>>>    decision about -m32/-m64. The patch works around it. However
>>>>>    the real patch should be to get these flags from the build
>>>>>    system, and not hardcode itself.
>>>>> 
>>>>>  - the sysctl system call is unsupported in the x32 kernel, and
>>>>>    just the include leads to a build error.  From my point of view
>>>>>    the header is not needed. I had successful builds on all other
>>>>>    targets without including it. If you want to keep the include,
>>>>>    then it should be guarded with
>>>>>    #if !(defined(_ILP32) && defined(__x86_64__))
>>>>> 
>>>>> Matthias
>>>> 
>>>> I've filed this bug for this:
>>>> https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8165440
>>> 
>>> Please note that as a P4 issue this can not be fixed given we have hit RDP1:
>>> 
>>> http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/jdk9-dev/2016-August/004777.html
>>> 
>>> Further this is filed as "bug" but seems to clearly be an enhancement, so you would need approval for it to come in post-Feature-Complete.
>>> 
>>> Please consider if this is something that must be fixed for 9 or can be deferred. Otherwise you will need to follow additional approval processes.
>>> 
>>> Sorry.
>>> 
>>> David (just the messenger!)
>>> 
>>>> Unfortunately, I have no way of testing it.
>>>> 
>>>> Cheers,
>>>> Severin
>>>> 
> 
> -- 
> .''`.  John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
> : :' :  Debian Developer - glaubitz at debian.org
> `. `'   Freie Universitaet Berlin - glaubitz at physik.fu-berlin.de
>  `-    GPG: 62FF 8A75 84E0 2956 9546  0006 7426 3B37 F5B5 F913