Name clashes - was: Re: [RFR]: 8186723: Add SuperH as new architecture for linux

[David Holmes]

On 24/08/2017 11:24 PM, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
> On 08/24/2017 03:20 PM, David Holmes wrote:
>> Ouch! So I have to wonder whether the raw -D for the cpu arch name is 
>> really necessary.
>> There's obviously a lot of legacy usage to consider here though. But 
>> I've often assumed/
>> expected that if we tell the compiler to build for a specific cpu then 
>> the compiler would
>> provide a suitable define (probably underscored) that we could then 
>> use in the code if needed.
> 
> I agree. The string "LEGACY" in the identifier seems to confirm that. 
> Might be a good idea
> to open a separate bug for the removal of this identifier.

Seems usage of these -D<ARCH> values are pervasive throughout the 
hotspot sources, so they won't be going away.

>> Short-term solution would be your option (b) and rename alpha and sh 
>> to something unlikely to cause a clash.
> Will do.
> 
> I guess we can merge 8186723 without any changes then? It doesn't rely 
> on the legacy
> (lowercase) identifier but on the all-uppercase identifier anyways.

I guess so.

BTW it is odd that this:

       #error Method os::dll_load requires that one of following is 
defined:\
          AARCH64, ALPHA, ARM, AMD64, IA32, IA64, M68K, MIPS, MIPSEL, 
PARISC, __powerpc__, __powerpc64__, S390, SH, __sparc

is a mix of the configure generated -D<ARCH> values and what are 
presumably compiler defined ones. It should, for consistency, be using 
PPC32, PPC64 and SPARC. <sigh>

David

> Adrian
>