minimal backport of 8182299 build on OSX 10 + Xcode 8

Simon Tooke stooke at redhat.com
Thu Jul 4 13:22:23 UTC 2019


On 7/3/2019 4:50 PM, Hohensee, Paul wrote:
> There are quite a few JBS issues that fix gcc 7 and 8 compilation problems. Possibly backporting these will fix most/all of clang's complaints as well.

I would prefer to address compiler warnings sepaately; they are a really
big rabbit hole.

In fact, I'd rather address runtime undefined behaviours first; fixing
these often fixes compile-time warnings too.

-Simon

>
> Paul
>
> On 7/3/19, 1:33 PM, "jdk8u-dev on behalf of Simon Tooke" <jdk8u-dev-bounces at openjdk.java.net on behalf of stooke at redhat.com> wrote:
>
>     
>     On 7/3/2019 4:03 PM, Andrew John Hughes wrote:
>     >
>     > On 03/07/2019 19:30, Ben Evans wrote:
>     >> Hi,
>     >>
>     >> As this appears to have been Warnock'd (
>     >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warnock%27s_dilemma), allow me to give it
>     >> another kick.
>     >>
>     >> My personal take (for the little that it's worth) is: Given current
>     >> adoption rates and trends, JDK 8 is going to be with us for a long time.
>     >> Restricting the potential community size of developers working on OpenJDK 8
>     >> by:
>     >>
>     >> 1.) Requiring that people who develop on Macs jump through virtualisation
>     >> hoops and
>     >> 2.) Making the building of binaries a byzantine process requiring the
>     >> maintenance of obsolete Macs
>     >>
>     >> is bad, and we should stop doing it.
>     >>
>     >> Thanks,
>     >>
>     >> Ben
>     >>
>     >> On Fri, Jun 28, 2019 at 4:09 PM Simon Tooke <stooke at redhat.com> wrote:
>     >>
>     >>> Hello everyone,
>     >>>
>     >>> I would like to make a somewhat controversial proposal: to backport the
>     >>> minimal changes required to enable jdk8u to compile and run when built
>     >>> with the latest macOS developer tools.
>     >>>
>     >>> I realize this falls outside of aph's guidelines of "bug fixes only,
>     >>> (for now)" and in many ways is only a developer convenience, since I am
>     >>> not advocating (at this time) for this build to become the default
>     >>> supported for macOS [1].
>     >>>
>     >>> There changes do not affect the current mac build, which requires an old
>     >>> version of Xcode which doesn't run on modern releases of macOS, but they
>     >>> make it much easier for macOS hackers to work with jdk8.
>     >>>
>     >>> At this point, testing has been confined to bootstrapping the build with
>     >>> a jdk8 built using this patch, and to using this build to build a
>     >>> working Graal substrateVM.
>     >>>
>     >>> My version of the backport limits the scope of the 8182299 patches to
>     >>> the subset required to get the JDK up and running.  I don't propose
>     >>> backporting any changes to remove Clang warnings, etc.  Because of that,
>     >>> my changes are confined in scope.
>     >>>
>     >>> Potential long term benefits (if this build does seem healthy enough for
>     >>> production) are simplified macOS build platforms, a more modern compiler
>     >>> and perhaps higher performance.
>     >>>
>     >>> Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8182656
>     >>>
>     >>> Webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~stooke/webrevs/xcodemacos.webrev/
>     >>>
>     >>> Thanks for your time,
>     >>>
>     >>> -Simon
>     >>>
>     >>> [1] first, potentially removes support for macOS 10.8, second, needs
>     >>> more testing.
>     >>>
>     >>>
>     >>>
>     > I saw it, but there's a CPU on right now. I'll have a look properly once
>     > that's out of the way.
>     Yes, I know this is very much on the back burner for now. 
>     > My initial thought is what is the subset you refer to? The problem with
>     > backporting bits of a change is that it then looks like that change is
>     > backported, but some parts of it are actually missing.
>     
>     We could avoid referring to the initial patch altogether; a large part
>     of it (which I avoided) was simply getting rid of clang warning
>     messages.  I just went for the bits that stop the crash, and skipped the
>     rest.
>     
>     
>     
>     
>


More information about the jdk8u-dev mailing list