[7u60] RFR 8024648 : 8016131 breaks Zero port

[Alejandro E Murillo]

On 2/14/2014 12:11 AM, David Holmes wrote:
> On 14/02/2014 4:52 PM, Alejandro E Murillo wrote:
>>
>> On 2/13/2014 9:47 PM, Andrew Hughes wrote:
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>> To expand on a solution for this ...
>>>>
>>>> Note that in vm.make and gcc.make the only uses of the JVM_VARIANT
>>>> variables relates to ZERO and ZEROSHARK. That is the real problem 
>>>> in my
>>>> view (it was natural to use them as they were very prominent).
>>>>
>>>> Looking through the build process it seems to me that in the generated
>>>> flags.make we will have:
>>>>
>>>> include zero|shark.make
>>>> include gcc.make
>>>>
>>>> And in zero|shark.make we have TYPE=ZERO or TYPE=SHARK. So TYPE can be
>>>> used in gcc.make instead of the JVM_VARIANT_* variable. (BUILDARCH 
>>>> will
>>>> also be zero but that doesn't help with shark.)
>>>>
>>>> Aside: note that here zero or shark is the VARIANT but that isn't
>>>> exposed in the generated makefiles as the VARIANT is already 
>>>> implicit in
>>>> the path to which the file was generated eg
>>>> hotspot/<os>_<arch>_<variant>/product
>>>>
>>>> Similarly the generated vm.make will include flags.make before the 
>>>> repo
>>>> version of vm.make so it too can use TYPE to identify ZERO or SHARK.
>>>>
>>>> If I knew how to build zero/shark I'd test this out. :(
>>>>
>>>> David
>>>> -----
>>>>
>>> This is a revised webrev using $(TYPE) in gcc.make and vm.make instead:
>>>
>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~andrew/jdk7u/8024648/webrev.02/
>>>
>>> The BSD changes mirror the GNU/Linux ones, as in the 7141426 change
>>> which broke the build, but I've no means to test on that platform.
>> I'll submit a couple of jprt jobs with these changes
>
> I read that as meaning Andrew couldn't do a zero BSD build.
Right. so doesn't make sense then to do further testing  if that hasn't 
been verified,
Andrew, let me know when that's verified and I can run some additional 
tests with jprt

Thanks
Alejandro
>
> Andrew: thanks for doing this. The functional changes to the build 
> files etc look fine to me.
>
> However I don't know about the additional copyrights that were added. 
> I can't see anything in the OpenJDK rules/charter/legal, or the OCA, 
> that addresses this.
>
> Thanks,
> David
>
>> thanks
>>

-- 
Alejandro