RFR (XS): Enable new build on Linux/PPC64 (jdk part)

Vladimir Kozlov vladimir.kozlov at oracle.com
Wed Jun 26 16:53:20 UTC 2013


We have special staging forest for PPC64/AIX port:


We collect Hotspot and JDK changes there for testing before pushing into 
main sources in a future. But some general fixes we push directly into 
our main sources.
If you think these build changes are acceptable for main, please, ask 
someone sponsor these changes.

Alan is our official contact for PPC64/AIX project. I CC him.


On 6/26/13 8:56 AM, Erik Joelsson wrote:
> Hello,
> If you by staging area mean the build-infra forest, that's more or less
> dead now.
> I think these changes look good now (both top level and jdk). It should
> be fine to push this to jdk8/build.
> /Erik
> On 2013-06-26 17:28, Volker Simonis wrote:
>> Hi Erik,
>> thank you for looking at this. I've prepared a new webrev at:
>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~simonis/webrevs/8017568_jdk/
>> <http://cr.openjdk.java.net/%7Esimonis/webrevs/8017568_jdk/>
>> 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,
>> Volker
>> On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 12:41 PM, Erik Joelsson
>> <erik.joelsson at oracle.com <mailto: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:
>>             Hi,
>>             could somebody please review the following change and
>>             create an appropriate
>>             Bug ID for it:
>>             http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~simonis/webrevs/linux_ppc_build_jdk/
>>             <http://cr.openjdk.java.net/%7Esimonis/webrevs/linux_ppc_build_jdk/>
>>             The patch contains two little changes which are required
>>             to build the class
>>             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 reviewed
>>             at
>>             http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~simonis/webrevs/linux_ppc_build_top
>>             <http://cr.openjdk.java.net/%7Esimonis/webrevs/linux_ppc_build_top>
>>             CompileLaunchers.gmk
>>             Remove mapfile from build instructions of BUILD_UNPACKEXE:
>>                CFLAGS_macosx:=-fPIC, \
>>             -
>>             MAPFILE:=$(JDK_TOPDIR)/makefiles/mapfiles/libunpack/mapfile-vers-unpack200,\
>>                LDFLAGS:=$(UNPACKEXE_ZIPOBJS),\
>>               I think it makes no sense to use a version script file
>>             for an executable
>>             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_node/ld_25.html>states:
>>             "*Version scripts are only meaningful when creating shared
>>             libraries.*"
>>             Morover unpack200 was the only executable which used a
>>             version script file.
>>         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
>>     http://bugs.sun.com/view_bug.do?bug_id=7033954, 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?
>>     /Erik
>>             Fix typo (replace 'defalt: all' by 'default')
>>             default: all
>>             CompileNativeLibraries.gmk
>>             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.
>>         /Erik

More information about the build-dev mailing list