RFR: 8166189: Fix for Bug 8165524 breaks AIX build

[Volker Simonis]

On Wed, Nov 30, 2016 at 6:18 AM, Kumar Srinivasan
<kumar.x.srinivasan at oracle.com> wrote:
> Hi Volker et. al.,
>
> Was a bug opened to track this ? I still see these files around
> http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk9/dev/jdk/file/ff45c582ca8a/src/java.base/aix/native/libjli
>

Hi Kumar,

no, as far as I know there's no bug for this issue until now.
The current situation is not ideal, but it works and it doesn't impact
any other platform except AIX.
So there's no reason for us to address this with high priority and
surely not within the jdk9 time frame.

I think ideally, this could be addressed the next time we see a
similar problem, otherwise it is probably always too much at the
bottom of the priority list :)

Thank you and best regards,
Volker

> Would you like me to create a bug for you ?
>
> Thanks
> Kumar
>
>
> On 9/29/2016 9:59 AM, Volker Simonis wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 5:25 PM, Erik Joelsson <erik.joelsson at oracle.com>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 2016-09-29 16:54, Alan Burlison wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 29/09/2016 08:03, Volker Simonis wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Sorry, but that doesn't sound like a solution to me at all. I think we
>>>>> should keep the OpenJDK sources self-contained. I don't want to depend
>>>>> on yet another non-standard, third party library which doesn't even
>>>>> exist now.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Unless I'm completely misunderstanding, that's not what is being
>>>> proposed.
>>>> What is being proposed is refactoring code that's currently duplicated
>>>> across the JVM & JDK into a common library. Such a library would be a
>>>> standard Java component, not non-standard and not third-party. I can't
>>>> see
>>>> what the problem is, to be honest.
>>>>
>>> Volker's comment above was directed at the suggestion of taking the
>>> problematic AIX specific code out of the OpenJDK repositories and create
>>> a
>>> separate library with a separate lifecycle somewhere else that OpenJDK
>>> for
>>> AIX would then need to depend on. Volker was instead proposing what you
>>> describe.
>>>
>> Thanks Erik, this is exactly what I meant :)
>>
>> And I think the solution you ssketched in your previous mail is the
>> right way to address this problem.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Volker
>>
>>
>>> /Erik
>
>