RFR: 8250876: Build system preparation to macos on aarch64

Mon Aug 10 13:11:24 UTC 2020

On 2020-08-10 03:47, Vladimir Kempik wrote:
> Hello
>
> Renamed the bug to "Fix issues with cross-compile on macos"
>
> Please check updated webrev: 
> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~vkempik/8250876/webrev.01/
>
> Adlc is fine with cross-compiling now.
>
While not strictly needed for ADLC, I would like to see BUILD_CC getting 
the same treatment here for consistency.

/Erik

> Regards, Vladimir
>> 10 авг. 2020 г., в 12:52, Magnus Ihse Bursie 
>> <magnus.ihse.bursie at oracle.com 
>> <mailto:magnus.ihse.bursie at oracle.com>> написал(а):
>>
>> So, basically, what this patch is about is not so much "preparation 
>> for aarch64" as "allow cross-compile on macos"?  If I understand you 
>> correctly, maybe you should rename the bug?
>>
>> /Magnus
>>
>> On 2020-08-04 16:09, Erik Joelsson wrote:
>>> That's a good find! You are correct in that we haven't cross 
>>> compiled in any direction involving Macosx before.
>>>
>>> The preferred patch would be a bit more elaborate than that. Ideally 
>>> we need better control over the toolchain type of the BUILD_* 
>>> compiler settings. For now, I think just forcing clang/clang++ if 
>>> BUILD_OS is macosx is good enough.
>>>
>>> /Erik
>>>
>>> On 2020-08-04 07:02, Bernhard Urban-Forster wrote:
>>>> Good observation David, the change in adlc is just fixing a 
>>>> symptom. The difference to a regular macOS build is that 
>>>> technically, despite running on the same machine, it's actually 
>>>> cross compiling due to Rosetta being the --build=x86_64 system.
>>>>
>>>> Being a cross-compile, we therefore hit this case:
>>>> https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/blob/b0ceab23dd4176329cbf3a95f21e8e9ac2d8723f/make/autoconf/toolchain.m4#L905-L921 
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> And thus infers `/usr/bin/CC` for CXX.
>>>>
>>>> I guess cross compiling hasn't been a thing on macOS yet. I tried 
>>>> the following and it passes the adlc build:
>>>>
>>>> --- a/make/autoconf/toolchain.m4
>>>> +++ b/make/autoconf/toolchain.m4
>>>> @@ -917,7 +917,7 @@ AC_DEFUN_ONCE([TOOLCHAIN_SETUP_BUILD_COMPILERS],
>>>>       # find the build compilers in the tools dir, if needed.
>>>>       UTIL_REQUIRE_PROGS(BUILD_CC, [cl cc gcc])
>>>>       UTIL_FIXUP_EXECUTABLE(BUILD_CC)
>>>> -    UTIL_REQUIRE_PROGS(BUILD_CXX, [cl CC g++])
>>>> +    UTIL_REQUIRE_PROGS(BUILD_CXX, [clang++ cl CC g++])
>>>>       UTIL_FIXUP_EXECUTABLE(BUILD_CXX)
>>>>       UTIL_PATH_PROGS(BUILD_NM, nm gcc-nm)
>>>>       UTIL_FIXUP_EXECUTABLE(BUILD_NM)
>>>>
>>>> Although I'm not sure about its cleanliness :-)
>>>>
>>>> -Bernhard
>>>>
>>>> ________________________________________
>>>> From: build-dev <build-dev-retn at openjdk.java.net 
>>>> <mailto:build-dev-retn at openjdk.java.net>> on behalf of David Holmes 
>>>> <david.holmes at oracle.com <mailto:david.holmes at oracle.com>>
>>>> Sent: Tuesday, August 4, 2020 00:46
>>>> To: Erik Joelsson; Vladimir Kempik; build-dev
>>>> Cc: Anton Kozlov; Alexander Ioffe; Andrew Brygin; Andrey Petushkov
>>>> Subject: Re: RFR: 8250876: Build system preparation to macos on aarch64
>>>>
>>>> On 3/08/2020 10:57 pm, Erik Joelsson wrote:
>>>>> Hello Vladimir,
>>>>>
>>>>> These changes look innocent enough to me. They aren't actually adding
>>>>> macosx-aarch64 support, they are just removing two minor (and more
>>>>> likely OS version related) hurdles from the build. You still have to
>>>>> provide the actual configuration on the configure command line as is
>>>>> shown in your example. Before we can call build system support, we 
>>>>> would
>>>>> need configure to automatically setup those flags and add a separate
>>>>> parameter for the JNF framework. So, given that, I don't think this
>>>>> change warrants a JEP in itself.
>>>> Of course this change doesn't warrant a JEP in itself :) My point is
>>>> that until we have a JEP for the platform that is being targeted 
>>>> then we
>>>> shouldn't be making changes to provide support for that platform.
>>>>
>>>> That said I didn't actually look at the changes but focused on the
>>>> larger stated aim, so apologies for that.
>>>>
>>>> The actual changes here are small and not obviously related to
>>>> supporting macOS-Aarch64. But I'm unclear on this change as it affects
>>>> all macOS builds:
>>>>
>>>>     42   else ifeq ($(call isBuildOs, macosx), true)
>>>>     43     ADLC_LDFLAGS := -lc++
>>>>
>>>> if this was fixing a bug as indicated, why do we not see this bug in
>>>> regular builds?
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> David
>>>> -----
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> My only complaint is that you revert jib-profiles.js. That file is 
>>>>> only
>>>>> used internally at Oracle. If/when we need it to support 
>>>>> macosx-aarch64,
>>>>> we will provide those changes.
>>>>>
>>>>> I must say I'm happy to see you managed to get a working build
>>>>> configuration with just this though!
>>>>>
>>>>> /Erik
>>>>>
>>>>> On 2020-08-01 00:24, Vladimir Kempik wrote:
>>>>>> Hello
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Please review this change for JDK-8250876
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This changeset adds support for macos/aarch64 into build system.
>>>>>> It will allow to crosscompile for macos/aarch64 using intel mac 
>>>>>> as well.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This changeset does NOT address some arm specific issues in the macos
>>>>>> related code, we plan to do that in s separate commit.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> An example of configure to cross-compile for macos/arm64:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --with-boot-jdk=/path/to/java/
>>>>>> --with-build-jdk=/path/to/same/java/as/compiled
>>>>>> --disable-warnings-as-errors --with-jvm-variants=zero
>>>>>> --openjdk-target=aarch64-apple-darwin --with-extra-cflags='-arch
>>>>>> arm64' --with-extra-ldflags='-arch arm64
>>>>>> -F/Path/To/Folder/Containing/JNF_framework/'
>>>>>> —with-extra-cxxflags='-arch arm64’
>>>>>>
>>>>>> JNF.framework is missing arm64 part as of next macos release, but
>>>>>> Apple has opensourced it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Fix to adlc were needed due to it using symbols from stdc++ and not
>>>>>> linking to it, so it fails when doing make images.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The webrev: 
>>>>>> https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http:%2F%2Fcr.openjdk.java.net%2F~vkempik%2F8250876%2Fwebrev.00%2F&data=02%7C01%7Cbeurba%40microsoft.com%7C0c8d58d5eb9144e8717f08d837ff3736%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637320916565796801&sdata=HpXJmHXbuawTdExWESK9ssesYTuPTj7N6inXjaHfVaM%3D&reserved=0
>>>>>> The bug: 
>>>>>> https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fbugs.openjdk.java.net%2Fbrowse%2FJDK-8250876&data=02%7C01%7Cbeurba%40microsoft.com%7C0c8d58d5eb9144e8717f08d837ff3736%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637320916565796801&sdata=9z2Nw8d0pa5huxUKOYorMOVy6SBo7o%2FhDT1EmgOhxQ8%3D&reserved=0
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Testing: jdk/submit.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks, Vladimir.
>