[PING] [8u] RFR: 8073139: PPC64: User-visible arch directory and os.arch value on ppc64le cause issues with Java tooling

[Severin Gehwolf]

Hi Goetz,

I'm a bit confused :-/

On Tue, 2018-10-02 at 12:39 +0000, Lindenmaier, Goetz wrote:
> Hi Severin, 
> 
> here for example: http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/build-dev/2015-July/015370.html

As far as I can see that was relating to the JDK-head fix which wasn't
available at the time (July vs. pushed in Dec). The original review
thread was here:
http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/build-dev/2015-December/016103.html

JDK-8073139 has been fixed in JDK 9+ since December 14, 2015.

> While the fix proposed there looks different and the downport was never 
> finished.

FWIW, this is a review request for the 8u backport :)

Thanks,
Severin

> Best regards,
>   Goetz.
> 
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Severin Gehwolf <sgehwolf at redhat.com>
> > Sent: Dienstag, 2. Oktober 2018 13:09
> > To: Lindenmaier, Goetz <goetz.lindenmaier at sap.com>; Erik Joelsson
> > <erik.joelsson at oracle.com>; hotspot-dev <hotspot-
> > dev at openjdk.java.net>; ppc-aix-port-dev <ppc-aix-port-
> > dev at openjdk.java.net>; build-dev <build-dev at openjdk.java.net>
> > Subject: Re: [PING] [8u] RFR: 8073139: PPC64: User-visible arch directory and
> > os.arch value on ppc64le cause issues with Java tooling
> > 
> > Hi Goetz,
> > 
> > On Tue, 2018-10-02 at 10:40 +0000, Lindenmaier, Goetz wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > > 
> > > I'm fine with this.
> > 
> > Thanks for the review!
> > 
> > > If I remember correctly, this was proposed before but
> > > never pushed in the end.
> > 
> > Interesting.
> > 
> > > Did you test this on ppc64 be, too?
> > 
> > I have not. Will do so, though.
> > 
> > Thanks,
> > Severin
> > 
> > > Best regards,
> > >   Goetz.
> > > 
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: ppc-aix-port-dev <ppc-aix-port-dev-bounces at openjdk.java.net>
> > 
> > On
> > > > Behalf Of Severin Gehwolf
> > > > Sent: Dienstag, 2. Oktober 2018 12:34
> > > > To: Erik Joelsson <erik.joelsson at oracle.com>; hotspot-dev <hotspot-
> > > > dev at openjdk.java.net>; ppc-aix-port-dev <ppc-aix-port-
> > > > dev at openjdk.java.net>; build-dev <build-dev at openjdk.java.net>
> > > > Subject: Re: [PING] [8u] RFR: 8073139: PPC64: User-visible arch directory
> > 
> > and
> > > > os.arch value on ppc64le cause issues with Java tooling
> > > > 
> > > > Hi,
> > > > 
> > > > Pinging PPC porters. Does this look reasonable to you?
> > > > 
> > > > Thanks,
> > > > Severin
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > On Fri, 2018-09-28 at 08:56 -0700, Erik Joelsson wrote:
> > > > > Build changes look ok to me.
> > > > > 
> > > > > /Erik
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > On 2018-09-26 04:26, Severin Gehwolf wrote:
> > > > > > Hi,
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Could I please get reviews for this JDK 8 backport which fixes some
> > > > > > tooling issues on Linux ppc64le? Prior this patch, a ppc64le build
> > > > > > would report as "ppc64" via os.arch system property which breaks
> > > > > > tooling such as maven in as much as if some dependency needs
> > 
> > native
> > > > > > libraries it would download BE binaries where it actually should
> > > > > > download LE binaries. Example for os.arch/java.library.path:
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > pre:
> > > > > > $ ./jdk8-pre-ppc64le/bin/java TestProperty
> > > > > > java.library.path =
> > > > 
> > > > /usr/java/packages/lib/ppc64:/usr/lib64:/lib64:/lib:/usr/lib
> > > > > > os.arch = ppc64
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > post:
> > > > > > $ ./jdk8-post-ppc64le/bin/java TestProperty
> > > > > > java.library.path =
> > > > 
> > > > /usr/java/packages/lib/ppc64le:/usr/lib64:/lib64:/lib:/usr/lib
> > > > > > os.arch = ppc64le
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8073139
> > > > > > webrevs: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~sgehwolf/webrevs/JDK-
> > > > 
> > > > 8073139/jdk8/01/
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Including build-dev for build changes. hotspot-dev and ppc-aix-port-
> > 
> > dev
> > > > > > for JDK/hotspot changes.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > This backport should only have minor differences to the changes in
> > 
> > JDK
> > > > > > 11. We have been using similar patches in Fedora for months.
> > 
> > Thoughts?
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > Severin
> > > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> 
>