[11]RFR: 8203030: Zero s390 31 bit size_t type conflicts in shared code

[Chris Phillips]

Hi Dan!

On 06/06/18 03:52 PM, Dan Horák wrote:
> On Wed, 6 Jun 2018 15:36:34 -0400
> Chris Phillips <ChrisPhi at LGonQn.Org> wrote:
> 
>> Hi,
>>
>> On 06/06/18 02:23 PM, Per Liden wrote:
>>> On 2018-06-06 18:29, Andrew Haley wrote:
>>>> On 06/06/2018 04:47 PM, Chris Phillips wrote:
>>>>> Please review this set of changes to shared code
>>>>> related to S390 (31bit) Zero self-build type mis-match failures.
>>>>>
>>>>> Bug:    https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8203030
>>>>> webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~chrisphi/JDK-8203030/webrev.0
>>>>
>>>> Can you explain this a little more?  What is the type of size_t on
>>>> s390x?  What is the type of uintptr_t?  What are the errors?
>>>
>>> I would like to understand this too.
>>>
>>> cheers,
>>> Per
>>>
>>>
>> Quoting from the original bug  review request:
>> http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/hotspot-dev/2014-June/014254.html
>> "This
>> is a problem when one parameter is of size_t type and the second of
>> uintx type and the platform has size_t defined as eg. unsigned long as
>> on s390 (32-bit)."
> 
> Chris, thanks for continuing with that, I hoped we won't need it any
> more after we dropped the 32/31-bit s390 from Fedora 2 years ago.
> 
> In short 32-bit s390 (31 bits are used for address space) has size_t
> defined as "unsigned long" (don't ask me why) while all other arches
> (AFAIK, including 64-bit s390x) use "unsigned int". And the difference
> is causing problems especially when C++ templates are used.
> 
> 
> 		Dan
>  

Thanks for clarifying!

>> Hope that helps,
>> Chris
>>
>> (I'll answer further if needed but the info is in the bugs and
>> review thread mostly)
>> See:
>> https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8203030
>> and:
>> http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/hotspot-dev/2014-June/014254.html
>> https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8046938
>> https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8074459
>> For more info.
> 
> 
> 
Chris