RFR (XL): 8019972: PPC64 (part 9): platform files for interpreter only VM.

[Vladimir Kozlov]

We have build conflict with Oracle closed sources. The closed build 
picks files from open ppc64:

s/src/cpu/ppc/vm/interp_masm_ppc_64.cpp:297:50: error: 'ppc_li' was not 
declared in this scope
s/src/cpu/ppc/vm/interp_masm_ppc_64.cpp:298:46: error: 'ppc_and' was not 
declared in this scope

We will discuss this internally and will see what we or you should do.

Thanks,
Vladimir

On 7/17/13 11:38 AM, Vladimir Kozlov wrote:
> On 7/17/13 10:18 AM, Christian Thalinger wrote:
>> One question:  why did you choose to prefix all assembler instructions
>> with ppc_?
>
> +1
>
> and PPC_ prefix in registers names.
>
> Goetz, it is different from our naming style so we would really
> appreciate if you change this.
>
> Regards,
> Vladimir
>
>>
>> -- Chris
>>
>> On Jul 17, 2013, at 8:34 AM, "Lindenmaier, Goetz"
>> <goetz.lindenmaier at sap.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> This time with webrev. Sorry for the double mails.
>>>
>>> This change contains all the files in cpu/ppc and os_cpu/linux_ppc
>>> needed for
>>> the PPC64 interpreter port on linux.
>>>
>>> With this change you can do a core build on ppc64 and run the VM
>>> interpreter only.
>>> It executes simple programs as jvm98.
>>> The change requires
>>>
>>> *         8016697: Use stubs to implement safefetch
>>>
>>> *         8020059: The flag introduced by 8014972 is not defined ...
>>> which will arrive soon in the staging repository.
>>>
>>> I marked the change as XL as it contains a lot of code.  Nevertheless
>>> the
>>> code has no impact on the existing Oracle platforms.
>>>
>>> The change touches a single shared file, globals.hpp, removing a
>>> special case introduced for the port.  This is because we
>>> integrated some changes earlier than originally intended.
>>>
>>> Please review the change.  Does it need testing on Oracle side?
>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~goetz/webrevs/8019972-ppc_files/
>>>
>>> Best regards,
>>>   Goetz.
>>>
>>