RFC: 8229469 JEP 386: Alpine Linux/x64 Port

[Mikael Vidstedt]

Great to see this - thank you for all the great work you’re putting into it!

The changes are in line with what I’m expecting given that I’ve looked at them before, so looks good to me! That said, I’ve looked at this so many times now - and after all even authored some of the original changes - so I would very much appreciate some other hotspot and core libs eyes on it. :)

One very minor thing I realized:

WB_GetLibcName now returns “glibc” by default (unless MUSL_LIBC is defined) which means it may return “glibc” on platforms where the default library really isn’t GNU libc. I will work just fine for what it’s currently being used for (isMusl), but is potentially a bit misleading.

Cheers,
Mikael

> On Sep 1, 2020, at 4:41 AM, Aleksei Voitylov <aleksei.voitylov at bell-sw.com> wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> JEP 386 is now Candidate [1] and as we resolved all outstanding issues
> within the Portola project I'd like to ask for comments from HotSpot,
> Core Libs (changes in libjli/java_md.c), and Build groups before moving
> the JEP to Proposed to Target:
> 
> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~avoitylov/webrev.8247589.01/
> 
> Testing:
> 
> JTReg, VM TestBase on all platforms (Linux x86_64, Linux x86, Linux Arm,
> Linux AArch64, Linux PPC, Windows x86_64, Windows x86, Mac) with no
> regressions. A downport of these changes to 14 passes JCK 14 on these
> platforms.
> 
> The port was tested on Alpine Linux 3.8 and 3.11 with JTReg, VM
> TestBase. There are no differences with Linux x86_64  with the exception
> of SA which is not supported as per the JEP. A downport of these changes
> to 14 passes JCK 14 on Alpine Linux.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> -Aleksei
> 
> [1] https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8229469
> 
>