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

[Severin Gehwolf]

Hi David,

Thanks for the review!

On Wed, 2018-09-26 at 07:39 -0400, David Holmes wrote:
> Hi Severin,
> 
> Changes present seem okay, but I don't see the SA changes, and don't you 
> want the JDK test change from this as well:
> 
> http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk9/jdk9/jdk/rev/2ff471390a03
> 
> ??

Test changes are there:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~sgehwolf/webrevs/JDK-8073139/jdk8/01/jdk/test/sun/security/pkcs11/PKCS11Test.java.udiff.html
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~sgehwolf/webrevs/JDK-8073139/jdk8/01/jdk/test/tools/launcher/Settings.java.udiff.html

The SA isn't built on ppc64/ppc64le (INCLUDE_SA=false). I can include
SA changes in the backport, but they won't do anything.

Thanks,
Severin

> On 26/09/2018 7:26 AM, 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
> >