Dropping 32-bit support (was Branches)

[Henri Gomez]

Good to see we could have back 32bits support in a near future.

Thanks gentlemen

2012/2/22 David Holmes <david.holmes at oracle.com>:
> On 22/02/2012 9:49 AM, Phil Race wrote:
>>
>> I was half suggesting that, half wondering. I suspect that most of the
>> queries on the value
>> of that flag are inside some "if <platform>" test so we may only need to
>> make the OS X
>> build path understand the combined setting for those cases, minimising
>> the disruption.
>
>
> Some of them are "generic" in hotspot (eg in the else of a !windows check or
> a !zero check). Didn't check JDK side.
>
> David
>
>
>
>> -phil.
>>
>> On 2/21/2012 3:32 PM, Mike Swingler wrote:
>>>
>>> Would it be feasible to overload ARCH_DATA_MODEL to take a string like
>>> "32+64", "32/64", or "Universal" (even though that's an ambiguous
>>> misnomer)?
>>>
>>> On Feb 21, 2012, at 3:31 PM, Phil Race wrote:
>>>
>>>> 'ARCH_DATA_MODEL' has historically been used to select a build as 32
>>>> or 64 bit.
>>>> So 'ARCH_DATA_MODEL=32' ought to be able to select a 32 bit only
>>>> build without
>>>> too many build changes. Making that support 32+64 as well may be
>>>> appropriate for OS X builds.
>>>>
>>>> -phil.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 2/21/2012 3:19 PM, Mike Swingler wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Awesome, thanks much James.
>>>>>
>>>>> Is there a pre-existing flag or naming convention for
>>>>> architecture-related build flags? Obviously we want to align with
>>>>> existing precedent, and get the HotSpot and JDK sides to use the
>>>>> same flag. :-)
>>>>>
>>>>> On Feb 21, 2012, at 2:58 PM, James Melvin wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes. I can file a bug and look into this, Mike.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> - Jim
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 2/21/12 5:55 PM, Mike Swingler wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Feb 21, 2012, at 2:45 PM, James Melvin wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> One caveat...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> For the JVM, we've preserved 32/64-bit universal builds.
>>>>>>>> Currently, the
>>>>>>>> JVM universal build only includes 64-bit support. Additionally
>>>>>>>> including
>>>>>>>> 32-bit requires 3 Makefile uncomments. However, there may likely be
>>>>>>>> additional work on the JDK side to fully support the same.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That's good to know, but that should really be keyed off of a
>>>>>>> build flag (which can default to 64-bit only). Should we file a CR
>>>>>>> through the Oracle bug reporter to get the process started to
>>>>>>> change this for HotSpot?
>>>>>
>>>>> Is there someone who can help restore the 32/64-bit build-ability
>>>>> for the JDK side, or at least direct us as to where we can start
>>>>> filing a CR?
>>>
>>> Curious,
>>> Mike Swingler
>>> Apple Inc.
>>>
>>
>