Somewhat wonkier Windows problem
david.r.chase at oracle.com
Fri May 24 12:07:43 UTC 2013
Note that my little patch is in addition to everything that Tim Bell has in his patch to allow building with VS2012 Express,
and I haven't tested this yet with VS2010 Express, but I will shortly.
And the point is exactly to allow someone outside Oracle to download OpenJDK and to build on Windows.
On 2013-05-24, at 6:06 AM, Erik Joelsson <erik.joelsson at oracle.com> wrote:
> On 2013-05-24 11:41, Anthony Petrov wrote:
>> [ adding 2d-dev@ ]
>> On 05/24/2013 11:23 AM, Erik Joelsson wrote:
>>> On 2013-05-23 20:10, David Chase wrote:
>>>> One change to add (a by-hand "diff") to
>>>> common/autoconf/toolchain_windows.m4 :
>>>> AC_MSG_CHECKING([for DirectX SDK lib dir])
>>>> if test "x$with_dxsdk_lib" != x; then
>>>> elif test "x$OPENJDK_TARGET_CPU" = "xx86_64"; then
>>>> + elif test -d "$dxsdk_path/Lib/x86"; then
>>>> + DXSDK_LIB_PATH="$dxsdk_path/Lib/x86"
>>>> This allows 32-bit configure with DirectX SDK 2010.
>>>> This assumes that DXSDK 2004 lacks any subdirectory Lib/x86; I haven't
>>>> seen it yet.
>>> Yes, newer directx sdks have that subdir while the only one we support
>>> doesn't. That's why I didn't add that check. The 2d team is quite
>>> adamant about that being the only working directx sdk and any talk about
>>> changing it should be with them, not the build team.
>> We build OracleJDK using DXSDK 2004. Building with a newer DXSDK may (in theory) cause some differences in rendering graphics. Note that in practice I don't recall if anyone has ever seen any actual differences. However, when fixing e.g. 2D bugs, it is important that developers use the proper version of DXSDK for their developer builds to make sure they reproduce the actual issue. In all other cases the version of DXSDK doesn't really matter.
>> I don't see how this translates to DXSDK 2004 "being the only working directx sdk". I believe that the changes proposed by David are reasonable and should be implemented to allow the OpenJDK community build with any version of DXSDK.
>>> If we want to change directx sdk, we should first consider removing the
>>> dependency completely since technically, everything that's needed is
>>> installed with visual studio and/or the normal windows sdk.
>> I agree, this is a good idea. And this is exactly something that the 2D team should decide. However, I believe that the above patch could be applied to OpenJDK as an interim solution before the decision is made.
> I agree with the patch too. Just gave the history to why it wasn't added already.
More information about the build-dev