Somewhat wonkier Windows problem
erik.joelsson at oracle.com
Fri May 24 10:06:02 UTC 2013
On 2013-05-24 11:41, Anthony Petrov wrote:
> [ adding 2d-dev@ ]
> On 05/24/2013 11:23 AM, Erik Joelsson wrote:
>> On 2013-05-23 20:10, David Chase wrote:
>>> One change to add (a by-hand "diff") to
>>> common/autoconf/toolchain_windows.m4 :
>>> AC_MSG_CHECKING([for DirectX SDK lib dir])
>>> if test "x$with_dxsdk_lib" != x; then
>>> elif test "x$OPENJDK_TARGET_CPU" = "xx86_64"; then
>>> + elif test -d "$dxsdk_path/Lib/x86"; then
>>> + DXSDK_LIB_PATH="$dxsdk_path/Lib/x86"
>>> This allows 32-bit configure with DirectX SDK 2010.
>>> This assumes that DXSDK 2004 lacks any subdirectory Lib/x86; I haven't
>>> seen it yet.
>> Yes, newer directx sdks have that subdir while the only one we support
>> doesn't. That's why I didn't add that check. The 2d team is quite
>> adamant about that being the only working directx sdk and any talk about
>> changing it should be with them, not the build team.
> We build OracleJDK using DXSDK 2004. Building with a newer DXSDK may
> (in theory) cause some differences in rendering graphics. Note that
> in practice I don't recall if anyone has ever seen any actual
> differences. However, when fixing e.g. 2D bugs, it is important that
> developers use the proper version of DXSDK for their developer builds
> to make sure they reproduce the actual issue. In all other cases the
> version of DXSDK doesn't really matter.
> I don't see how this translates to DXSDK 2004 "being the only working
> directx sdk". I believe that the changes proposed by David are
> reasonable and should be implemented to allow the OpenJDK community
> build with any version of DXSDK.
>> If we want to change directx sdk, we should first consider removing the
>> dependency completely since technically, everything that's needed is
>> installed with visual studio and/or the normal windows sdk.
> I agree, this is a good idea. And this is exactly something that the
> 2D team should decide. However, I believe that the above patch could
> be applied to OpenJDK as an interim solution before the decision is made.
I agree with the patch too. Just gave the history to why it wasn't added
More information about the build-dev