RFR: Bug Pending: Build fails to compile jchuff.c
david.holmes at oracle.com
Wed Jan 24 01:59:20 UTC 2018
should have been updated for 10, and I expect it will be updated for 11
as we are looking to update all of the "official" tool chains. Given the
official gcc version for 9 was already 4.9.2 I don't think it necessary
to support 4.8.5 in 10 or 11. Given the new update model it is unclear
to me whether it makes sense to make this change in the 9u forest, but
at most I think this should only be in 8u and 9u.
On 24/01/2018 3:18 AM, Adam Farley8 wrote:
>>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:
>>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
> website was likely to change when SLE11 went out of service. From what
> 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
> 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
>>> 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.
> 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
> Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6 3AU
More information about the build-dev