Review Request JDK-8175819: OS name and arch in JMOD files should match the values as in the bundle name
David M. Lloyd
david.lloyd at redhat.com
Tue Apr 4 15:20:54 UTC 2017
On 04/04/2017 10:12 AM, mark.reinhold at oracle.com wrote:
> 2017/4/4 1:04:22 -0700, magnus.ihse.bursie at oracle.com:
>> On 2017-04-03 23:50, Mandy Chung wrote:
>>> JDK 8 JDK 9
>>> ----- -----
>>> OS_NAME Linux linux
>>> SunOS solaris
>>> Darwin macos
>>> Windows windows
>>> OS_ARCH i386,x86 x86
>>> i586,amd64,x86_64 amd64
>>> sparcv9 sparcv9
>>> arm arm32
>>> aarch64 arm64
>> If we are making changes to the original proposal from JDK-8175819, then
>> I just want to add my few cents:
>> Why change from the well-established "aarch64" to the virtually unused
>> "arm64"? As far as I know, using the name "arm64" for the aarch64
>> platform is something that has only been done in the (recently opened)
>> closed Oracle port. This change, however, proposes to change the value
>> in the release file even for the open aarch64 port, which has always
>> been known by that name.
> The trouble here is that "arm64" and "aarch64" are effectively synonyms
> for the ISA, but in the JDK we've wound up using them as the names of
> two different ports.
> A JMOD file built for the 64-bit ARM architecture will (one hopes) run
> equally well on either port. Which name should we use in JMOD files,
> "arm64" or "aarch64"? My sense is that "arm64" is more immediately
> understood by developers at large even if "aarch64" is more correct
> in the eyes of ARM Holdings plc, but I could be wrong.
> For what it's worth, the Linux distros aren't consistent: Debian-based
> distros use "arm64", while Red Hat / Fedora seem to prefer "aarch64".
If you use "arm64" instead of "aarch64" then shouldn't you use "sparc64"
instead of "sparcv9"? Same logic AFAICT.
More information about the jigsaw-dev