[OpenJDK 2D-Dev] RFR: Bug Pending: Build fails to compile jchuff.c
philip.race at oracle.com
Tue Jan 23 23:12:17 UTC 2018
The discussion about SLE seems to have taken over.
This was originally about zLinux.
If it actually makes sense for zLinux for JDK 11 then I have no
the proposed toolchain specific patch ...
If it does not make sense for 11 then I think you should look only at 8u
a patch directly against that.
Its not "critical" for 10 which is in RDP2 already and 9 is going EOSL
in less than 3 months ...
On 1/23/18, 9:18 AM, Adam Farley8 wrote:
> >On 01/23/2018 05:25 PM, Adam Farley8 wrote:
> >>> SLE-11:* doesn't even have OpenJDK-8 and is also going to be out
> of support
> >>> next year anyway.
> >> Does this mean the gcc version will change? If you have hard
> information on
> >> this, I'd appreciate the URL.
> >I'm not sure what you mean. SLE12-SP3 ships gcc-4.8.x while SLE-15 will
> >ship gcc-7, see:
> >Is that what you mean when you say the gcc version is changing?
> Apologies, I was unclear. I was asking if the minimum gcc version on
> website was likely to change when SLE11 went out of service. From what
> telling me, the sles 11 bit on the site will likely be updated to sles
> and the gcc version won't change (as you're saying SLE12 ships with
> >> If the minimum gcc version for 10 or 11 is above 4.8.5 across all
> >> then I agree, but I don't have that information, so I figured I'd
> ask to
> >> cover all of the JDK versions, to be safe.
> >I don't know what the minimum version is at the moment, to be honest.
> I haven't
> >tried building OpenJDK-10 or OpenJDK-11 on SLE-12:SP3 yet. I could do
> >if that's important.
> >> Even if the gcc version does change, adding 4.8.5-specific code
> >> break anything.
> >It most likely doesn't break anything. But it leaves workaround in the
> >base which we could potentially forget to clean out later when it is no
> >longer needed.
> Agreed. I was hedging my bets on the gcc version not changing. Be good
> if we had
> some reliable intel on the minimum gcc version that we could use to
> make a
> >> What do you think?
> >My opinion is that the codebase for OpenJDK-11 should be kept clean
> >we are working on getting rid of unnecessary cruft. But this decision
> >up to me, of course. I'm just arguing that I consider the chances that
> >will try OpenJDK-11 on SLE-12:SP3 or even SLE-11:SP4 very low.
> A reasonable opinion. I may disagree with your conclusions, but you
> your arguments well.
> Could others on this email chain act as tie breaker on the jdk10+11
> matter please?
> Best Regards
> Adam Farley
> Unless stated otherwise above:
> IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with
> number 741598.
> Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6 3AU
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the 2d-dev