RFR (M): 8024265: Enable new build on AIX (top level part)
volker.simonis at gmail.com
Tue Sep 10 05:15:42 PDT 2013
On Mon, Sep 9, 2013 at 4:32 PM, Volker Simonis <volker.simonis at gmail.com>wrote:
> Hi Magnus,
> thanks again for the review. Please see my comments inline:
> On Mon, Sep 9, 2013 at 12:23 PM, Magnus Ihse Bursie <
> magnus.ihse.bursie at oracle.com> wrote:
>> Hi Volker,
>> Some more comments inlined.
>> OK, common/autoconf/build-aux/autoconf-config.guess was too old and
>> didn't knew about AIX 7 so it returned the default AIX fallback which is
>> 'rs6000-ibm-aix'. I have now fixed 'autoconf-config.guess' to know about
>> AIX 7 (a one character change which is already in autoconf-2.69 so we won't
>> have problems if you should ever update autoconf-config.guess).
>> Hmm... While more elegant, the idea was that autoconf-config.guess should
>> be a strict copy of the config.guess file from the autoconf package. The
>> whole idea of wrapping it in a custom config.guess was to avoid "forking"
>> the autoconf config.guess, with small changes (like this) that would be
>> hard to track and might get lost if we update to a newer version from the
>> upstream autoconf file.
>> That being said, since we settled on autoconf 2.69, we really should
>> update the file to config.guess from autoconf-2.69. I've started a test run
>> on our internal test system with the config.guess from 2.69 to see if it
>> breaks any existing platforms. If not, I suggest we do a fast integration
>> of the new config.guess.
>> Can you hold on with your changes until a new config.guess comes in? Even
>> if you're just making a small change that will be reverted soon after, I
>> think it would set a unfortunate precedent.
> That's OK for me. Actually my change still works without the changes in
> "config.guess" on AIX 5.3. And it will automatically start working once we
> get the new "config.guess".
>> Ahrgh, all these proud compilers with their own ways of expressing the
>>> same functionality. :( I assume that you are using the COMP_MODE_OPTION in
>>> the jdk projct? I couldn't find any references to it in the Hotspot build
>>> changes, and otherwise there seems to be no reason to export it in the
>>> spec.gmk file.
>> Yes, exactly. It is used in 'jdk/makefiles/GensrcX11Wrappers.gmk'
>> Once again the X11 wrappers. We should really make an effort and get rid
>> of them. :-/
>> I don't mind:)
>> I fully agree with the criticism on the name:) After we already have
>> 'COMPILER_SUPPORTS_TARGET_BITS_FLAG' I've simply renamed it to
>> 'COMPILER_TARGET_BITS_FLAG'. I think that's much more appropriate and if
>> you don't like it we should ask the one who invented
>> 'COMPILER_SUPPORTS_TARGET_BITS_FLAG' :) And I had to set
>> 'COMPILER_TARGET_BITS_FLAG' a little earlier such that is availabel in
>> Sounds good! Nice aligning with the existing macro.
>> However, you forgot to change the name in spec.gmk.in. (At least in the
>> webrev you published.)
> Good catch! I didn't realize it because the build in the stage
> repositories currently doesn’t reach the X11 wrappers.
> I've changed it and moved it near the definition of
>> 2. After you pointed out that setting '-q64' as extra flags on the
>> configure command line is not the way it is supposed to work I recalled
>> that we also have this problem on older Linux/PPC64 boxes (e.g. SLES 10)
>> where the default compiler produces 32-bit objects by default. To fix this
>> problem as well, I've inserted a call to
>> PLATFORM_SET_COMPILER_TARGET_BITS_FLAGS followed by a second call to
>> AC_CHECK_SIZEOF([int *], ) in the case where we would otherwise have
>> bailed out because the "TESTED_TARGET_CPU_BITS" differs from the actual
>> "OPENJDK_TARGET_CPU_BITS". I think this change should not affect any
>> existing platforms because it will only be triggered where we woould have
>> bailed out with an error anyway.
>> Also, the workaround for autoconf bug
>> http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/autoconf/2010-07/msg00004.html in
>> AC_CHECK_SIZEOF isn't needed any more now that we require at least
>> autoconf-2.69 because the problem was fixed in 2.67. And if I looked at it
>> more carefully I must say that I don't understand the workaround at all. In
>> my opinion, the test "x$SIZEOF_INT_P" != "x$ac_cv_sizeof_int_p" will always
>> fail, because the AC_CHECK_SIZEOF macro only writes a define for
>> SIZEOF_INT_P into "confdefs.h" (as can be seen in generated-configure.h)
>> but it never defines it in the shell. And defining SIZEOF_INT_P in the
>> configure shell script wouldn't help if the define written by the
>> AC_CHECK_SIZEOF macro was wrong (as described in the bug). So Ithink the
>> best is to remove the workaround and use "ac_cv_sizeof_int_p" in the places
>> where we used AC_CHECK_SIZEOF before.
>> Good to get rid of the old workaround. I agree, it looks kind of weird. I
>> think I might have been behind some of the weirdness; I think I interpreted
>> the autoconf documentation as if it should assign a variable SIZEOF_INT_P
>> in the configure script, and that the $ac_* variables were internal
>> variables that should not be directly accessed. In the current
>> documentation, at least, the $ac_cv_sizeof* macro is officially mentioned
>> so it should be safe to use.
>> However, your second relies on some internal autoconf magic, by unsetting
>> variables and defines. We've tried to avoid that, but at times there were
>> no choice. Since we're about to fail anyway, and the code is more in place
>> for future, strange platforms, it's probably no harm.
> Is it OK if I push it now to
> http://hg.openjdk.java.net/ppc-aix-port/ppc-aix-port/stage or is there
> anything you want to test first?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the ppc-aix-port-dev