Compile JRE for PPC 32 bit

[Radu Andritoiu]

Hi Adrian,

Thank you very much for the reply.
I did the same thing, but added -DHEADLESS manually only where I needed it,
not generally.
It is  great to know I can add it in general and not have any troubles.


Thank you again,
Radu


On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 3:04 PM, Anton Kozlov <akozlov at azul.com> wrote:

> 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
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/ppc-aix-port-dev/attachments/20180214/90e0f33d/attachment.html>