RFR (M): 8036767 PPC64: Support for little endian execution model
erik.joelsson at oracle.com
Thu Mar 27 10:30:49 UTC 2014
For the approval. Is this for JDK9 only?
On 2014-03-27 09:36, Volker Simonis wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 27, 2014 at 9:05 AM, Erik Joelsson <erik.joelsson at oracle.com> wrote:
>> There are unfortunately legal complications surrounding updating these
>> files. We can initiate the approval dance, but it will take time to go
>> through (weeks at least). This is the reason Magnus added the wrapper around
>> config.guess, so that we could get functional updates to it faster.
> OK, but as I wrote, config.guess currently only maps some recognized
> systems to different names. This case is different because for ppc64le
> the output of 'autoconf-config.guess' would be an emtpy string and a
> quite big error message on stderr. Do you really want that we make
> Linux/ppc64le the default fallback in config.guess if
> 'autoconf-config.guess' can not detect a system?
Why does it need to be the only fallback? Couldn't you do some sanity
uname check as well?
> Or should we exceptionally just patch 'autoconf-config.guess' if we
> know that we will update it anyway with a new version within a few
> weeks? I think I'd prefer this solution, because this is just one
> change which will be automatically removed once we integrate the new
> 'autoconf-config.guess' version. If we just hack 'config.guess' we
> would have to manually take that change back once we get the new
> 'autoconf-config.guess' version.
It's unclear to us if we are allowed to make edits in these files.
I also suspect that the current wrapper file would need to be changed
after an update anyway.
> In any case I'd kindly ask you to start the 'legal approval dance' :)
Working on it. Is this for JDK9 only or are you planning backports?
>> I agree that long term, updating these files from the source is the correct
>> On 2014-03-26 23:47, Alexander Smundak wrote:
>>> On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 2:21 AM, Volker Simonis
>>> <volker.simonis at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> So I'd suggest we just check in this new version for the current
>>> I agree.
>>> Magnus, would you like me to do this?
More information about the hotspot-dev