OpenJDK 8 and Shark

[Roman Kennke]

Hi,

> > > > 2) What was the last version of LLVM that anyone used to build
> > > Shark?  The 
> > > > latest gcc compiler complains about "#elif _MSC_VER" not being
> > > defined in the 
> > > > llvm 3.4 headers.  Changing it to "#elif defined(_MSC_VER)" solves
> > > the problem.
> > 
> > I think I pushed a patch to address this on JDK9, I remember it was
> > backported to 8 also, so Shark on 8 and 9 "should" be buildable with
> > llvm 3.4 and 3.2.
> > 
> > I think the patch was here (IIRC):
> > 
> > http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~neugens/zero-2014-02-24/webrev.03/
> > 
> > I'm CC'ing Severin that took over most of my work there, maybe he knows
> > something more.
> 
> Sorry, this does not ring a bell for me. The last time I've built shark
> was a while ago (> 6 months back) and I think I've used llvm 3.4. I may
> have used the above patches, not sure. Last I recall was that shark
> debug builds were terribly broken. Shark release builds somewhat worked,
> after you got it to compile but still had many bugs. I've tried on
> x86_64 only.

3.4 works, 3.4.2 (latest 3.4) only works with some changes that I did
over christmas :-) I'll push them upstream asap. 3.5 currently doesn't
work, but I'll address this soon.

> > It's possible something changed in the JDK so that this patch is not
> > valid anymore, unfortunately as Andrew says LLVM is too much of a moving
> > target to keep up with it, but any patches are welcomed!
> 
> Speaking of Zero alone I know that upstream OpenJDK changes have been
> breaking the zero variant build a couple of times. Thus, I would not be
> surprised if shark is broken in a similar way. In general, I try to fix
> Zero compile issues as soon as they get noticed via:
> http://builder.classpath.org/jenkins/job/OpenJDK9_hscomp_Zero/

We need that for Shark too :-)

I have got Shark to work fairly well on X86. I'm currently trying on
Arm. I will push my changes to JDK9 upstream. From there, we could look
to backport them to 8u if desired.

Roman