[NEW BUG]: Configure broken on MIPS

[David Holmes]

https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8200213

Sponsoring.

David
-----

On 26/03/2018 12:50 PM, Ao Qi wrote:
> 2018-03-23 18:05 GMT+08:00 David Holmes <david.holmes at oracle.com>:
>> On 23/03/2018 7:54 PM, Magnus Ihse Bursie wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 2018-03-23 09:55, David Holmes wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 23/03/2018 6:46 PM, Magnus Ihse Bursie wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 2018-03-23 06:22, David Holmes wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi Thomas,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 23/03/2018 2:55 PM, Thomas Stüfe wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hi David,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> would it not be pragmatic to accept Ao's patch - it looks fine to me -
>>>>>>> since it certainly would not make matters worse. And let Magnus follow up
>>>>>>> with a cleanup change later?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Well I hope Magnus's change is forthcoming.
>>>>>
>>>>> It might be some time still. I'm working on a complete overhaul of all
>>>>> CFLAGS and LDFLAGS, where this is a part of that picture, but I was not
>>>>> planning on addressing just this thing urgently.
>>>>>
>>>>> So, I think this patch will do for now. It solves the immediate problem
>>>>> for MIPS, and I can come back and make a cleaner solution later on.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Isn't the best quick fix one that only adds -m64 for x86? I recall  a
>>>> report that arm32 is similarly broken.
>>>
>>> Not really, because this is also needed on some other platforms, at least
>>> s390x, as I recall. (This was the reason it was originally added.)
>>
>>
>> According to gcc docs there are 4 archs that use m64 and we only care about
>> 2 of them:
>>
>> m64: SPARC Options
>> m64: S/390 and zSeries Options
>> m64: RS/6000 and PowerPC Options
>> m64: i386 and x86-64 Options
>>
>> But you need to know whether you are dealing with S390 or S390x as m64
>> implies zSeries.
>>
>> Ao will need a sponsor to create a bug etc regardless of which way this
>> goes.
>>
> 
> Is it possible to accept my patch first (before a perfect all-platform
> solution is made)? If yes, could someone help to create a bug etc?
> Thanks!
> 
>> My week is over. :)
>>
>> Cheers,
>> David
>>
>>
>>> /Magnus
>>>
>>>>
>>>> David
>>>> -----
>>>>
>>>>>> AFAICS it's as easy to write this only for x86 as it is to exclude it
>>>>>> for non x86. Honestly I don't know why the Aarch64 patch was done the way it
>>>>>> was - there must be some subtlety here that I'm not aware of.
>>>>>
>>>>> I think it was just the smallest patch that worked for the aarch64
>>>>> platform. I didn't spend time arguing about the fix, since it is supposed to
>>>>> be short-lived anyway.
>>>>>
>>>>> /Magnus
>>>
>>>
>>