Compile JRE for PPC 32 bit

[Anton Kozlov]

Hi Radu,

from my experience, next is enough to get headless build:

export BUILD_HEADLESS=true
export BUILD_HEADLESS_ONLY=true
add "-DHEADLESS=true" to CFLAGS
./configure --without-x --disable-headful

Probably, some of these may be redundant... But I don't know any issues so far.

Thanks,
Anton

On 14.02.2018 00:16, Radu Andritoiu wrote:
> Hello Adrian, 
> 
> I am almost done with compiling jdk8, so I try to succeed with this one rather than switching to jdk10.
> I managed to compile "hotspot" target, and now I am having some trouble with the "jdk" target: I need to compile a HEADLESS jre version only, because the machine it will run afterwards doesn't have X11.
> 
> I observed that:
>  - in the jdk code sources related to drawing, the "HEADLESS" define is used a lot
>  - when building "libawt.so" the flag -DHEADLESS has no mechanism for being set, so I presume that libawt.so will always be HEADFUL
>  - when building "libawt_headless.so" and linking "libjawt.so", BUILD_HEADLESS_ONLY variable is used, but I do not see any mechanism to set it
> 
> I am adding the parameter "--disable-headful" when running the "configure" script. 
> And this does set:
> 
>     SUPPORT_HEADFUL:=no
>     SUPPORT_HEADLESS:=yes
>     BUILD_HEADLESS:=true
> 
> but does nothing to set  BUILD_HEADLESS_ONLY.
> 
> Should I manually add BUILD_HEADLESS_ONLY variable in Awt2dLibraries.gmk and  -DHEADLESS when compiling "libawt.so" ?
> 
> 
> Thank you,
> Radu
> 
> 
> On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 8:26 PM, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz <glaubitz at physik.fu-berlin.de <mailto:glaubitz at physik.fu-berlin.de>> wrote:
> 
>     Hi Radu!
> 
>     I apologize for the late reply!
> 
>     Yes, the Zero variant should compile natively and also supports cross-builds. However, you will most likely need some patches to fix minor issues with Zero to get it to build in jdk8u.
> 
>     The situation is much better with jdk10 though where Zero builds fine on most architectures without needing any additional patches.
> 
>     Let me know if you run into a specific problem with jdk8u and I will help you.
> 
>     Adrian
> 
>     On Feb 1, 2018, at 2:34 PM, Radu Andritoiu <raduandritoiu at gmail.com <mailto:raduandritoiu at gmail.com>> wrote:
> 
>>     Hello Adrian,
>>
>>     Should jdk8u compile natively  on x86 with "zero" jvm variant? 
>>     I was trying to do that to see if the output may help me run the cross compile.
>>
>>     Thank you,
>>     Radu
>>
>>
>>     On Mon, Jan 29, 2018 at 11:36 AM, Radu Andritoiu <raduandritoiu at gmail.com <mailto:raduandritoiu at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>
>>         Hello Anton,
>>
>>         Glad to hear you have a PPC 32 port of jdk8. Does it have the fix for RMI vulnerability (https://access.redhat.com/security/cve/cve-2017-3241 <https://access.redhat.com/security/cve/cve-2017-3241>). 
>>         I will tell this to my manager and ask what direction he wants to go.
>>
>>         Thank you,
>>         Radu
>>
>>
>>         On Fri, Jan 26, 2018 at 6:44 PM, Anton Kozlov <akozlov at azul.com <mailto:akozlov at azul.com>> wrote:
>>
>>             Hi, All,
>>
>>             sorry, completely overlooked the thread.
>>
>>             On 25.01.2018 19:11, Volker Simonis wrote:
>>             > Azul is known to have a 32bit ppc port, but they havn't contributed it
>>             > to the OpenJDK yet.
>>
>>             yes, Azul have ppc32 port of jdk8u, in SPE and FPU variants.
>>
>>             Yes, we want to contribte the support to OpenJDK, but it complicated.
>>             To reveal source code we need to make up-port to current jdk development tree (11?) first, and it's heavy.
>>
>>             We have no reasonable estimates when the up-port will be ready. This is also pulls us back from creating new Project, as it will be out of sync with development branch of OpenJDK.
>>
>>             Thanks,
>>             Anton
>>
>>
>>
>