Dropping 32-bit support (was Branches)

[Paul Hohensee]

Imo, it's very unlikely that 64-bit build footprint will ever be an 
issue, and
32-bit build footprint would be an issue on memory-limited devices, of
which there are none that run OSX.  The real utility of 32-bit is 
compatibility.

I'd just go with universal binaries and not bother with 32/64 options.

I don't speak for Oracle, of course.  Personal opinion only. :)

Paul

On 2/27/12 6:13 PM, John Yeary wrote:
> Personally I like the idea of a default with "Universal" binaries, and the options for 32/64 for the reasons you mentioned. I think it is important to be inclusive vs. exclusive.
>
> John
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Feb 27, 2012, at 6:09 PM, Artem Ananiev<artem.ananiev at oracle.com>  wrote:
>
>> Alternatively, we can completely ignore ARCH_DATA_MODEL on Mac and always build universal binaries. As far as I remember, we did exactly this when Mac OS X Port was a standalone OpenJDK project. Of course, in this case we'll lose an ability to build 32-bit and 64-bit only builds, which may be useful in cases when JDK/JRE size is important.
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Artem
>>
>> On 2/22/2012 1:51 AM, Michael McMahon wrote:
>>> Jim,
>>>
>>> If the Hotspot openjdk build is changed to produce both 32/64 bit binaries
>>> then the JDK build can be changed to do the same. The only reason why
>>> 32 bit support was removed in the JDK libs was because it wasn't
>>> available in Hotspot
>>> at the time. This seemed to align with Oracle's (and Apple's)
>>> views/plans at the time also.
>>>
>>> However, it's clear there is a demand for at least the Openjdk source to
>>> be buildable for
>>> 32/64 bit. How about if ARCH_DATA_MODEL=universal then we build both on
>>> Mac OS X?
>>>
>>> We can do this in jdk7u-dev (post 7u4) and in jdk8. I don't see any need
>>> to get it into
>>> 7u4 because Oracle won't be supporting it in our JDK anyway.
>>>
>>> - Michael
>>>
>>> On 21/02/12 22:45, James Melvin wrote:
>>>> One caveat...
>>>>
>>>> For the JVM, we've preserved 32/64-bit universal builds. Currently, the
>>>> JVM universal build only includes 64-bit support. Additionally including
>>>> 32-bit requires 3 Makefile uncomments. However, there may likely be
>>>> additional work on the JDK side to fully support the same.
>>>>
>>>> - Jim
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 2/21/12 5:21 PM, Mike Swingler wrote:
>>>>> On Feb 21, 2012, at 12:18 AM, Henri Gomez wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Another question for you guys about OSX.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 32 bits support as been removed some weeks ago without further notice
>>>>>> on OSX version.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> * Why such decision ?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> * How could we bring back 32 bits support, especially -d32 support ?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> * Where is the correct location to enter a bug report on this
>>>>>> (bugreport.sun.com ?)
>>>>> Dalibor&  Mark,
>>>>>
>>>>> Henri raises some good points here, since the ability to build
>>>>> OpenJDK 32/64 Universal was lost in the merge from the macosx-port
>>>>> repository to the jdk7u-osx repository with no public discussion.
>>>>>
>>>>> I thought the ability to build 32/64 Universal was preserved, and
>>>>> Oracle was simply going to support 64-bit only in it's proprietary
>>>>> builds.
>>>>>
>>>>> What is the best path to fixing this?
>>>>>
>>>>> Mike Swingler
>>>>> Apple Inc.
>>>>>