RFR: 8345169: Implement JEP 503: Remove the 32-bit x86 Port

[David Holmes]

On Tue, 4 Mar 2025 16:52:16 GMT, Aleksey Shipilev <shade at openjdk.org> wrote:

> This PR implements JEP 503: Remove the 32-bit x86 Port.
> 
> The JEP is proposed to target 25, we would not integrate until JEP is ready. Reviews are appreciated meanwhile.
> 
> This is only the removal of obvious 32-bit x86 parts, mostly files with `x86_32` in their name.  Those are only built when build system knows we are compiling for x86_32. There is therefore no impact on x86_64. The approach for removing x86_32 files only also makes this PR borderline trivial, and requires no additional testing beyond normal pre-integration checks.
> 
> The rest of the code is quite heavily intertwined with x86_64 and/or Zero, and would require accurate untangling. It would be much easier to review and test once we purge the free-standing parts of 32-bit x86 port, which is also a bulk of the port. The tangling with 32-bit x86 Zero is also why I did not touch most of the build system paths that handle x86. There is [JDK-8351148](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8351148) umbrella that tracks further cleanup work. One can peek the final state that can be reached with all the cleanups in my earlier exploratory https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/pull/22567.
> 
> Additional testing:
>  - [x] Linux x86_32 Server fastdebug, `make bootcycle-images` (now fails configure)
>  - [x] Linux x86_64 Server fastdebug, `make bootcycle-images` (still works)
>  - [x] Linux x86_32 Zero fastdebug, `make bootcycle-images` (still works)
>  - [x] Linux x86_64 Zero fastdebug, `make bootcycle-images` (still works)

I am also a bit puzzled by the JEP/JBS strategy here. I would expect a bunch of dependent PRs that then get integrated together as "The Implementation of JEP 503". I understand things may be missed that require some follow up RFE's but I don't think we should start from that position and have a large chunk of work not be done under the JEP umbrella.

-------------

PR Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/23906#issuecomment-2702781694