RFR: Bug Pending: Build fails to compile jchuff.c

[Philip Race]

The discussion about SLE seems to have taken over.
This was originally about zLinux.

If it actually makes sense for zLinux for JDK 11 then I have no 
objections to
the proposed toolchain specific patch ...

If it does not make sense for 11 then I think you should look only at 8u 
and prepare
a patch directly against that.

Its not "critical" for 10 which is in RDP2 already and 9 is going EOSL 
in less than 3 months  ...

-phil.

On 1/23/18, 9:18 AM, Adam Farley8 wrote:
> >On 01/23/2018 05:25 PM, Adam Farley8 wrote:
> >>> SLE-11:*  doesn't even have OpenJDK-8 and is also going to be out 
> of support
> >>> next year  anyway.
> >>
> >> Does this mean the gcc version will change? If you have hard 
> information on
> >> this, I'd appreciate the URL.
> >
> >I'm not sure what you mean. SLE12-SP3 ships gcc-4.8.x while SLE-15 will
> >ship gcc-7, see:
> >
> >> 
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__build.opensuse.org_package_view-5Ffile_SUSE-3ASLE-2D15-3AGA_gcc_gcc.spec-3Fexpand-3D1&d=DwIC-g&c=jf_iaSHvJObTbx-siA1ZOg&r=P5m8KWUXJf-CeVJc0hDGD9AQ2LkcXDC0PMV9ntVw5Ho&m=dIGHRmVpTLUCdNXpk5OeZoRTr4KMZfiyFp7leAxQ1x4&s=kvSfKGn4zfKUDx14bZlDZsWrY3uorXE_6lBuTmOMchw&e= 
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__build.opensuse.org_package_view-5Ffile_SUSE-3ASLE-2D15-3AGA_gcc_gcc.spec-3Fexpand-3D1&d=DwIC-g&c=jf_iaSHvJObTbx-siA1ZOg&r=P5m8KWUXJf-CeVJc0hDGD9AQ2LkcXDC0PMV9ntVw5Ho&m=dIGHRmVpTLUCdNXpk5OeZoRTr4KMZfiyFp7leAxQ1x4&s=kvSfKGn4zfKUDx14bZlDZsWrY3uorXE_6lBuTmOMchw&e=> 
>
> >
> >Is that what you mean when you say the gcc version is changing?
>
> Apologies, I was unclear. I was asking if the minimum gcc version on 
> David's
> website was likely to change when SLE11 went out of service. From what 
> you're
> telling me, the sles 11 bit on the site will likely be updated to sles 
> 12,
> and the gcc version won't change (as you're saying SLE12 ships with 
> 4.8.x).
>
> >
> >> If the minimum gcc version for 10 or 11 is above 4.8.5 across all 
> platforms,
> >> then I agree, but I don't have that information, so I figured I'd 
> ask to
> >> cover all of the JDK versions, to be safe.
> >
> >I don't know what the minimum version is at the moment, to be honest. 
> I haven't
> >tried building OpenJDK-10 or OpenJDK-11 on SLE-12:SP3 yet. I could do 
> that
> >if that's important.
> >
> >> Even if the gcc version does change, adding 4.8.5-specific code 
> shouldn't
> >> break anything.
> >
> >It most likely doesn't break anything. But it leaves workaround in the 
> code
> >base which we could potentially forget to clean out later when it is no
> >longer needed.
>
> Agreed. I was hedging my bets on the gcc version not changing. Be good 
> if we had
> some reliable intel on the minimum gcc version that we could use to 
> make a
> decision.
>
> >
> >> What do you think?
> >
> >My opinion is that the codebase for OpenJDK-11 should be kept clean 
> because
> >we are working on getting rid of unnecessary cruft. But this decision 
> isn't
> >up to me, of course. I'm just arguing that I consider the chances that 
> someone
> >will try OpenJDK-11 on SLE-12:SP3 or even SLE-11:SP4 very low.
> >
> >Adrian
>
> A reasonable opinion. I may disagree with your conclusions, but you 
> present
> your arguments well.
>
> Could others on this email chain act as tie breaker on the jdk10+11 
> matter please?
>
> Best Regards
>
> Adam Farley
>
> Unless stated otherwise above:
> IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with 
> number 741598.
> Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6 3AU