Supported platforms

Aleksei Voitylov aleksei.voitylov at
Tue Apr 10 09:17:52 UTC 2018


see inline:

On 10/04/2018 11:00, David Holmes wrote:
> Hi Aleksei,
> This is all news to me. Good news, but unexpected. As far as I was 
> aware the 32-bit ARM port was dying a slow death and would eventually 
> get removed. 64-bit ARM is of course very much alive and well under 
> the Aarch64 porters - though I'm unclear if you are using that code 
> for ARMv8 or the Oracle contributed code that used to be closed?
You are welcome :) We are doing everything possible to keep it running, 
so I don't see any reason within OpenJDK to it being removed. Regarding 
ARMv8 port, we are working with Cavium, Redhat, and Linaro on supporting 
the AARCH64 port.
> I'm also unclear whether you are pushing changes back up to OpenJDK 
> for these platforms, or maintaining them locally? I haven't noticed 
> anything (other than build tweaks) and am curious about the release of 
> a Minimal VM for JDK 10 given the Minimal VM effectively died along 
> with the stand-alone Client VM.
We push everything upstream. I'm not sure why you believe Minimal VM and 
Client VM died in OpenJDK 10. From what I remember, there was some 
decision related to Client VM for Oracle binaries, but support for C1 
and Minimal VM was not removed from OpenJDK codebase. This is what I get 
with BellSoft Liberica binaries built from OpenJDK on Raspberry Pi:

> pi at rpi-3:~ $ java -version
> openjdk version "10-BellSoft" 2018-03-20
> OpenJDK Runtime Environment (build 10-BellSoft+0)
> OpenJDK Server VM (build 10-BellSoft+0, mixed mode)
> pi at rpi-3:~ $ java -minimal -version
> openjdk version "10-BellSoft" 2018-03-20
> OpenJDK Runtime Environment (build 10-BellSoft+0)
> OpenJDK Minimal VM (build 10-BellSoft+0, mixed mode)
> pi at rpi-3:~ $ java -client -version
> openjdk version "10-BellSoft" 2018-03-20
> OpenJDK Runtime Environment (build 10-BellSoft+0)
> OpenJDK Client VM (build 10-BellSoft+0, mixed mode)

> pi at rpi-3:~ $ java -minimal -XX:+PrintFlagsFinal HW | grep C1
>      bool C1OptimizeVirtualCallProfiling           = 
> true                                  {C1 product} {default}
>      bool C1ProfileBranches                        = 
> true                                  {C1 product} {default}
>      bool C1ProfileCalls                           = 
> true                                  {C1 product} {default}
>      bool C1ProfileCheckcasts                      = 
> true                                  {C1 product} {default}
>      bool C1ProfileInlinedCalls                    = 
> true                                  {C1 product} {default}
>      bool C1ProfileVirtualCalls                    = 
> true                                  {C1 product} {default}
>      bool C1UpdateMethodData                       = 
> false                                 {C1 product} {default}
>      bool InlineSynchronizedMethods                = 
> true                                  {C1 product} {default}
>      bool LIRFillDelaySlots                        = 
> false                              {C1 pd product} {default}
>      bool TimeLinearScan                           = 
> false                                 {C1 product} {default}
>      bool UseLoopInvariantCodeMotion               = 
> true                                  {C1 product} {default}
>      intx ValueMapInitialSize                      = 
> 11                                    {C1 product} {default}
>      intx ValueMapMaxLoopSize                      = 
> 8                                     {C1 product} {default}

Minimal VM and Client VM include C1, and Server VM includes C1 and C2. 
All (Client VM, Server VM, Minimal VM) were tested and work as expected.

> For JDK11 you will need to do some work for Condy (if not already 
> done) as well as JFR and Nest-based Access Control (which you can see 
> in the nestmates branch of the Valhalla repo), as you mention below. 
> Not sure what else may be needed. There's been a lot of code 
> refactoring and include file changes that have impact on platform 
> specific code as well.
Thanks for the heads-up!

> Cheers,
> David
> On 10/04/2018 5:23 PM, Aleksei Voitylov wrote:
>> Hi David,
>> Speaking about the arm/ port, BellSoft has been releasing 
>> JCK-verified binaries (as provided under the OpenJDK license) from 
>> the arm/ port for the Raspberry Pi for JDK 9 [1] for a while and 
>> recently released one for JDK 10 [2], including OpenJFX and Minimal 
>> VM support. On Raspberry Pi 2 (ARMv7) and Raspberry Pi 3 (ARMv8 chip 
>> running Raspbian) the binaries produced from this port are passing 
>> all the required testing, including the new features recently 
>> open-sourced by Oracle (such as AppCDS). As far as JDK 11 is 
>> concerned, we are keeping track of the changes, recently fixed a 
>> couple of build issues that slipped in [3, 4], are working on Minimal 
>> Value Types support and, from what I can tell, will need to look into 
>> JFR and Nest-Based Access Control. Please let us know if we missed 
>> anything and we need to prepare for some other new features for porting.
>> The intent is to keep the arm/ port in good shape and provide 
>> well-tested binaries for the Raspberry Pi.
>> I believed Oracle was aware about BellSoft producing binaries from 
>> this port [5], [6]. Based on twitter, it seems like at least some 
>> engineers at Redhat and SAP are aware about it. Let me know if there 
>> is anything else we need to do to spread the word about it with 
>> Oracle engineering. For now, Boris (cced) is the engineer at BellSoft 
>> working on supporting the arm/ port for the Raspberry Pi. Other than 
>> that, I really wonder what "stepping up to take ownership of a port" 
>> means when it's upstream, and there is some procedure we need to follow.
>> Thanks,
>> -Aleksei
>> [1]
>> [2]
>> [3]
>> [4]
>> [5]
>> [6]
>>> We are in a situation where previously "supported" platforms (by 
>>> Oracle)
>>> are no longer supported as, AFAIK, no one has stepped up to take
>>> ownership of said platforms - which is a requirement for getting a new
>>> port accepted into mainline. Without such ownership the code may not
>>> only bit-rot, it may in time be stripped out completely. Any interested
>>> parties would then need to look at (re)forming a port project for that
>>> platform to keep it going in OpenJDK (or of course they are free to 
>>> take
>>> it elsewhere).
>>> Cheers,
>>> David
>> On 09/04/2018 18:35, White, Derek wrote:
>>> Hi Magnus,
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2018 09:55:09 +0200
>>>> From: Magnus Ihse Bursie<magnus.ihse.bursie at>
>>>> To: Simon Nash<simon at>,bren at
>>>> Cc:build-dev at, hotspot-dev developers
>>>>     <hotspot-dev at>
>>>> Subject: Re: Supported platforms
>>>> Message-ID:<4b1f262d-b9d2-6844-e453-dd53b42b2d74 at>
>>>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
>>>> Simon,
>>>> On 2018-04-08 16:30, Simon Nash wrote:
>>>>> On 05/04/2018 02:26,bren at  wrote:
>>>>>> Many thanks with the link about the Platforms supported:
>>>>>> config-4417031.html
>>>>> This appears to be a list of the platforms that are supported
>>>>> (certified) by
>>>>> Oracle.? Where can I find the list of platforms that are supported by
>>>>> OpenJDK?? For example, what about the following platforms that don't
>>>>> appear on the Oracle list:
>>>>> Windows x86
>>>>> Linux x86
>>>>> aarch32 (ARMv7 32-bit)
>>>>> aarch64 (ARMv8 64-bit)
>>>>> Are all these supported for OpenJDK 9, 10 and 11?
>>>> There is actually no such thing as a "supported OpenJDK platform". 
>>>> While I
>>>> hope things may change in the future, OpenJDK as an organization 
>>>> does not
>>>> publicize any list of "supported" platforms. Oracle publishes a 
>>>> list of
>>>> platforms they support, and I presume that Red Hat and SAP and 
>>>> others do
>>>> the same, but the OpenJDK project itself does not.
>>>> With that said, platforms which were previously supported by Oracle 
>>>> (like
>>>> the one's you mentioned) tend to still work more-or-less well, but 
>>>> they
>>>> receive no or little testing, and is prone to bit rot.
>>>> /Magnus
>>> Surely you meant to say "receive no or little testing BY ORACLE, and 
>>> I haven't found a definitive list of supported OpenJDK platforms, 
>>> but have an ad-hoc list of publicly available binaries:
>>> - Major linux distros are supporting x64 and aarch64 (arm64), and 
>>> probably other platforms.
>>> - AdoptOpenJDK provides tested builds for most 64-bit platforms 
>>> (x64, aarch64, ppc64, s390).
>>>       -
>>> - Bellsoft provides support for 32-bit ARMv7.
>>>      -
>>> - Azul provides 32-bit x86 and ARMv7 binaries as well as 64-bit x86 
>>> and aarch64.
>>>      -
>>> I'm sure there are several others I've missed - sorry!
>>>   - Derek

More information about the build-dev mailing list