need advice on module structure for ISA-specific sources and classes

[mark.reinhold at oracle.com]

2014/9/9 1:47 -0700, magnus.ihse.bursie at oracle.com:
> On 2014-09-04 23:13, John Rose wrote:
>> Straw man proposal: Allow the folder names "cpu.$CPU" and "$OS.$CPU"
>> to occur as a sibling to "share" and $OS in source paths.
> 
> ...
> 
> I think the KISS-rule is a good guiding principle, and I think Johns 
> proposal mostly follow that. The only thing I'd like to suggest instead 
> is that we drop the "cpu." prefix. Sure, in theory we might get confused 
> when someone releases the "x86 OS" or the "macosx CPU" :-) but in 
> reality, there is no problem in telling the difference between windows 
> and sparc. The only thing that is important is that we keep the same 
> order of $OS and $CPU in the "combined" directories, so we do not mix 
> "solaris.sparc" with "arm64.linux".

Agreed -- let's drop the "cpu" prefix.

> ...
> 
> In the build system, we define two variables for each target platform, 
> OPENJDK_TARGET_CPU_ARCH and OPENJDK_TARGET_CPU, where the latter implies 
> a specific address size as well. I would very much appreciate if the 
> names used for the new directories match these variables (for example, 
> the values for OPENJDK_TARGET_CPU_ARCH are: x86, arm, ppc, s390 and 
> sparc), since that will allow us to keep consistency of the names in the 
> build, and to do the directory matching without any name translations. 

John -- can this set of CPU names be made work for libffi?

> Finally my personal opinion is that a dash is a better separator than a 
> dot, e.g. "solaris-sparc" is more readable than "solaris.sparc" (and 
> aligns better with what we've already done in the makefiles), ...

I agree; the dot is visually jarring.  Let's go with the dash.

- Mark