[PATCH FOR REVIEW]: Support the alpha architecture
joe.darcy at oracle.com
Fri Jun 4 00:24:59 UTC 2010
Andrew John Hughes wrote:
> On 3 June 2010 21:12, Alan Bateman <Alan.Bateman at oracle.com> wrote:
>> Andrew John Hughes wrote:
>>> Thanks Kelly. Your change does make more sense, especially given we
>>> don't yet use the _alpha_ define anyway. I've pushed the revised
>> I realize I'm late to this discussion but I assume the changes to the corba
>> repo aren't really necessary as it doesn't have any native code any more.
> Hmmm, I see this is the case with OpenJDK7 but OpenJDK6 still has
> src/share/native/com/sun/corba/se/internal/io/ioser.c. The patch
> originated on 6, where presumably the fix was needed.
Yes, I would be open to a backport of Alan's
6939646: Remove obsolete com.sun.corba.se.internal.io package
6955873: CORBA resources bundles and javax.activity missing from b94
to OpenJDK 6.
> To be honest, it seems strange that CORBA doesn't just use the JDK
> version of Defs-linux.gmk especially when the JDK version is prefixed
> +# WARNING: This file is shared with other workspaces.
> +# So when it includes other files, it must use JDK_TOPDIR.
> Surely these days the only 'other workspaces' to which this applies
> are the CORBA and HotSpot ones.
>> removed some obsolete code there recently but didn't have the cycles to do a
>> more thorough culling. It's a repo crying out to have its make files
> Too true, e.g. each compilation warns 'value of JDK_IMPORT_PATH cannot
> be empty, check or set ALT_JDK_IMPORT_PATH' when it is perfectly
> possible to build without this set.
> I was under the understanding that it was maintained as part of
> Glassfish so have avoided going near the OpenJDK copy where possible.
> What's the situation there?
The copy of corba in the JDK is separately maintained and we don't have
plans to switch to the Glassfish version.
More information about the build-dev