RFR : 8218965: aix: support xlclang++ in the compiler detection
martin.doerr at sap.com
Mon Feb 18 14:37:28 UTC 2019
excellent. Looks good to me. This should make AIX ready for JEP 347.
From: Baesken, Matthias
Sent: Montag, 18. Februar 2019 13:53
To: Magnus Ihse Bursie <magnus.ihse.bursie at oracle.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
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
> 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 :
Best Regards, Matthias
From: Magnus Ihse Bursie <magnus.ihse.bursie at oracle.com<mailto:magnus.ihse.bursie at oracle.com>>
Sent: Montag, 18. Februar 2019 11:18
To: Baesken, Matthias <matthias.baesken at sap.com<mailto:matthias.baesken at sap.com>>; 'build-dev at openjdk.java.net' <build-dev at openjdk.java.net<mailto:build-dev at openjdk.java.net>>
Cc: Doerr, Martin <martin.doerr at sap.com<mailto: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
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.
More information about the build-dev