RFR (XS): Enable new build on Linux/PPC64 (jdk part)
volker.simonis at gmail.com
Wed Jun 26 15:28:20 UTC 2013
thank you for looking at this. I've prepared a new webrev at:
What do you think, do you want to push this directly into the build
repositories or should I push it into the staging repository first?
Please see my further comments inline.
Thank you and best regards,
On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 12:41 PM, Erik Joelsson <erik.joelsson at oracle.com>wrote:
> On 2013-06-25 12:27, Erik Joelsson wrote:
>> Hello Volker,
>> On 2013-06-24 19:23, Volker Simonis wrote:
>>> could somebody please review the following change and create an
>>> Bug ID for it:
>>> The patch contains two little changes which are required to build the
>>> library part of the OpenJDK on Linux/PPC64. Most of the build magic is
>>> contained in the top-level part of this change which is separately
>>> at http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~**simonis/webrevs/linux_ppc_**build_top<http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~simonis/webrevs/linux_ppc_build_top>
>>> Remove mapfile from build instructions of BUILD_UNPACKEXE:
>>> CFLAGS_macosx:=-fPIC, \
>>> - MAPFILE:=$(JDK_TOPDIR)/**makefiles/mapfiles/libunpack/**
>>> I think it makes no sense to use a version script file for an
>>> and older linkers (e.g. on SLES 10) complain with: "*Invalid version tag
>>> `SUNWprivate_1.1'. Only anonymous version tag is allowed in executable.*"
>>> The GNU ld manual<http://ftp.gnu.org/old-**gnu/Manuals/ld-2.9.1/html_**
>>> "*Version scripts are only meaningful when creating shared libraries.*"
>>> Morover unpack200 was the only executable which used a version script
>>> Unpackexe has some weirdness and this isn't surprising me. Would be
>> good if someone with more historic knowledge could fill in on the reason
>> for this. Someone apparently went through the trouble of creating a special
>> mapfile for this executable. Also, if not using it, should it be removed?
> I looked closer at this. These mapfiles were explicitly added in
> but it was noted that it broke builds for architectures that didn't have
> mapfiles defined. If you look at the launchers, the mapfile is only set if
> the arch specific one exists. I think a safer change here would be to make
> the mapfile conditional on platform or arch for unpackexe.
I still do not fully understand why we need map-files for executables, but
I also understand that you don't want to change the current setup. So I
went the hard (and hopefully right:) way and implemented a detection of the
buggy linkers on older SuSE distros (e.g. on SLES 10) which complain with:
"Invalid version tag `SUNWprivate_1.1' during the configure step (see
top-level change). Unfortunately we still have quite a lot of these systems
so we really need the build with that buggy ld.
I've therefore added map files with anonymous version tags for these buggy
linkers which are only used if the buggy linker was detected during the
configure step (i.e. if USING_BROKEN_SUSE_LD=yes). Notice that this is no
PPC64 specific problem but a occurs on all SuSE 10 platforms.
And you've been right. I also had to add the arch specific map files for
ppc64 in order to use them for the other launchers.
> Kumar, you made the change referred to here, do you have anything to add?
> Fix typo (replace 'defalt: all' by 'default')
>>> default: all
>>> Only use $(OPENWIN_LIB) for linking LIBSPLASHSCREEN on Solaris! The old
>>> code worked only accidentally when the X-libraries are in the default
>>> linker path anyway. The right solution is to use $(X_LIBS) if not on
>>> Windows or Solaris.
>>> Append -DX_ARCH=X_PPC64 to LIBJSOUND_CFLAGS on PPC64. The value of
>>> X_ARCHisn't actually used on the PPC architectures, but there's a
>>> check to verify
>>> that it is set.
>>> Fix typo (replace 'defalt: all' by 'default')
>>> default: all
>>> Otherwise looks good.
More information about the build-dev