RFR: Bug Pending: Build fails to compile jchuff.c

Adam Farley8 adam.farley at uk.ibm.com
Tue Jan 23 17:18:28 UTC 2018


>On 01/23/2018 05:25 PM, Adam Farley8 wrote:
>>> SLE-11:*  doesn't even have OpenJDK-8 and is also going to be out of 
support
>>> next year  anyway.
>> 
>> Does this mean the gcc version will change? If you have hard 
information on
>> this, I'd appreciate the URL.
>
>I'm not sure what you mean. SLE12-SP3 ships gcc-4.8.x while SLE-15 will
>ship gcc-7, see:
>
>> 
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__build.opensuse.org_package_view-5Ffile_SUSE-3ASLE-2D15-3AGA_gcc_gcc.spec-3Fexpand-3D1&d=DwIC-g&c=jf_iaSHvJObTbx-siA1ZOg&r=P5m8KWUXJf-CeVJc0hDGD9AQ2LkcXDC0PMV9ntVw5Ho&m=dIGHRmVpTLUCdNXpk5OeZoRTr4KMZfiyFp7leAxQ1x4&s=kvSfKGn4zfKUDx14bZlDZsWrY3uorXE_6lBuTmOMchw&e=
>
>Is that what you mean when you say the gcc version is changing?

Apologies, I was unclear. I was asking if the minimum gcc version on 
David's 
website was likely to change when SLE11 went out of service. From what 
you're
telling me, the sles 11 bit on the site will likely be updated to sles 12,
and the gcc version won't change (as you're saying SLE12 ships with 
4.8.x).

>
>> If the minimum gcc version for 10 or 11 is above 4.8.5 across all 
platforms,
>> then I agree, but I don't have that information, so I figured I'd ask 
to
>> cover all of the JDK versions, to be safe.
>
>I don't know what the minimum version is at the moment, to be honest. I 
haven't
>tried building OpenJDK-10 or OpenJDK-11 on SLE-12:SP3 yet. I could do 
that
>if that's important.
>
>> Even if the gcc version does change, adding 4.8.5-specific code 
shouldn't
>> break anything.
>
>It most likely doesn't break anything. But it leaves workaround in the 
code
>base which we could potentially forget to clean out later when it is no
>longer needed.

Agreed. I was hedging my bets on the gcc version not changing. Be good if 
we had
some reliable intel on the minimum gcc version that we could use to make a
decision.

> 
>> What do you think?
>
>My opinion is that the codebase for OpenJDK-11 should be kept clean 
because
>we are working on getting rid of unnecessary cruft. But this decision 
isn't
>up to me, of course. I'm just arguing that I consider the chances that 
someone
>will try OpenJDK-11 on SLE-12:SP3 or even SLE-11:SP4 very low.
>
>Adrian

A reasonable opinion. I may disagree with your conclusions, but you 
present
your arguments well.

Could others on this email chain act as tie breaker on the jdk10+11 matter 
please?

Best Regards

Adam Farley

Unless stated otherwise above:
IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with number 
741598. 
Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6 3AU


More information about the build-dev mailing list