RFR : 8218965: aix: support xlclang++ in the compiler detection

[Baesken, Matthias]

Hello Martin and Magnus,

I  included Martin’s  harfbuzz fix  and adjusted  the  xlc version check   ( renamed  variable to XLC_USES_CLANG and also check the TOOLCHAIN_PATH ) .

>
>If we're talking about a short migration story, where soon XLC 16 will be required, and we can just replace

>TOOLCHAIN_CC_BINARY_xlc="xlc_r"
>with

>TOOLCHAIN_CC_BINARY_xlc="xlclang"
> then I can accept it anyway, so we don't need to complicate things.
>

Yes , that’s the idea -  to do the replacement above   sooner or later ;  depends of course also on the  introduction of the C++11/14 features in the code base .


New webrev :

http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~mbaesken/webrevs/8218965.1/


Best Regards, Matthias



From: Magnus Ihse Bursie <magnus.ihse.bursie at oracle.com>
Sent: Montag, 18. Februar 2019 11:18
To: Baesken, Matthias <matthias.baesken at sap.com>; 'build-dev at openjdk.java.net' <build-dev at openjdk.java.net>
Cc: Doerr, Martin <martin.doerr at sap.com>
Subject: Re: RFR : 8218965: aix: support xlclang++ in the compiler detection


On 2019-02-15 14:30, Baesken, Matthias wrote:



Are they both pointing to the same binary, and the mode of operation

(legacy xlc vs xlclang) is determined by the name of the executable?





Hello, in the installation I use   I have separate  binaries .







Is xlclang++ always available for version 16+ of xlc?





I think so,  as least I am not  aware of an installation mode with separate  binaries .

However I am not an XLC  installation guru 😊 .





If so, maybe we should just make sure we call the compiler with the

correct name if version 16+ is detected?





I thought  that we currently  first set  the  toolchain  name and then  set a fix  name for the binary  and check the version .

But I might be wrong.  Maybe  we need  to adjust this .

Or just at some future  point in time  declare  xlc16   as minimum   requirement  (this makes things  easier , we can then use  the new binary names   ).

Yeah, we can adjust the process if needed. And to solve this *properly*, we should. I still think this looks like the wrong way to do it. But...

If we're talking about a short migration story, where soon XLC 16 will be required, and we can just replace


TOOLCHAIN_CC_BINARY_xlc="xlc_r"
with


TOOLCHAIN_CC_BINARY_xlc="xlclang"
then I can accept it anyway, so we don't need to complicate things.

I also don't like how xlclang is just run from the path, but OTOH it's only you guys who are going to run that in practice, and it's just going to be temporary, so, whatever.

The name AIX_USE_CLANG is not really correct, though. This is not about AIX. It should be XLC_USE_CLANG (or maybe better XLC_USES_CLANG, even perhaps XLC_IS_CLANG?!). And, as I said, it should use true/false, not 0/1.

If you fix this, and we agree that this is a temporary measure, I'm OK with the patch.

/Magnus