Current Status of OpenJDK 8 for mips64el

Magnus Ihse Bursie magnus.ihse.bursie at
Tue Aug 28 06:33:32 UTC 2018

On 2018-08-27 16:32, Ao Qi wrote:
> Magnus Ihse Bursie <magnus.ihse.bursie at> 于2018年8月22日周三 下午5:21写道:
>> On 2018-08-21 19:33, Ao Qi wrote:
>>> Hi Magnus,
>>> Thanks for you reply. Please see inline:
>>> Magnus Ihse Bursie <magnus.ihse.bursie at> 于2018年8月21日周二 下午5:15写道:
>>>> The current mips-port project is more or less abandoned. There is just
>>>> Dalibor as lead, and no other registrered contributors. [1] No serious
>>>> activitity has happend on the mailing lists for years, and there is not
>>>> even a hg repository associated with the project.
>>>> It does seem like a good idea to revive it for bringing in your mips
>>>> port into a more current version of OpenJDK.
>>>> I would suggest that, if Dalibor is happy with it, he should pass on the
>>>> role as mips-port lead to you, since you are actively pursuing the mips
>>>> port at this point.
>>> If possible, I am willing to take this responsibility.
>> That sounds good!
>> Formally, Dalibor would need to resign as Project Lead. Then, a new
>> Project Lead can be nominated and voted upon by the Group Leads of the
>> sponsoring groups. In this case, the Porters Group is the sole sponsor,
>> so the Project Lead can elect a new Project Lead in a single stroke. :-)
>> And, conveniently, the Group Lead of the Porters Group is also Dalibor,
>> so he can do all of this in a single email. ;-)
>>>> In any case, the first thing to to is for the mips-port lead to request
>>>> a new repository for the up to date port. The project lead needs to send
>>>> a mail to ops at and specify the name of the repository.
>>>> My suggestion would be "mips-port/jdk" if the intention is to track the
>>>> current jdk/jdk master, or "mips-port/jdk11" (or jdk8, or ...) if the
>>>> intention is to track a specific, released, version.
>>> I support this suggestion. We already have a jdk8 MIPS64 port and we
>>> will maintain it for a long time, so I think mips-port/jdk8 or
>>> mips-port/jdk8u may be needed.
>> If you intend to track jdk8u (which I recommend), then you should name
>> it after that.
> In this case, "mips-port/jdk8" should be created first, then another
> "mips-port/jdk8u" should be created for upgrade and maintenance? Do I
> understand it right?
I don't think you need a jdk8 repo as such. The "upstream" repo is just 
a historical fact, frozen at time of GA. You only need a jdk8u.

>>> I do have plans to upgrade our port to
>>> the latest jdk/jdk master. Actually, I have done some research and
>>> experiment in the past few days. However, I can't guarantee how long
>>> it will take to get the job done.
>> Then it's just as well to request a mips-port/jdk repo while you're at
>> it, I think.
> I think we can do this work (upgrade to the jdk/jdk master) internally
> in our company. When it is done, then I try to request a mips-port/jdk
> repo or even request to merge into the master.

Merging mips64 into master is a long-term project. A mips-port repo is 
definitely a needed first step on that road.

>>> I have one question about the name. Our port is for MIPS64, and I know
>>> some companies are doing MIPS32 port. I am not sure whether they will
>>> upstream their work. If yes, it is not known yet that whether the code
>>> is merged into "mips-port/jdk11" (or jdk8, or ...)  or into different
>>> repositories. So which name (mips-port or mips64-port) are more
>>> suitable for the current situation?
>> Unless there's a requirement that repo names must match the project
>> names, it sounds like mips64-port is more logical. Such matching seem to
>> be the general rule, but otoh I find repos that does not fit project
>> names either, so maybe it's a flexible rule.
>> Even if no mips32 port ever materializes, I think this is a good choice
>> of name. If your port is only supporting mips64 and you have no
>> intention of doing anything different, then it's better to be explicit.
>> That way everyone's expectations on the port is at the right level.
> Currently we mainly focus on MIPS64.
> However, if some one is doing MIPS32 port, we are willing to help and
> contribute:)
Seeing that no-one has been interested in mips32 for a long time, that 
does not seem likely. I'd recommend using mips64. A future mips-32 port 
will probably need to start over in a new repo, from a different level.


> Magnus, thanks!
>> /Magnus
>>>> Once a repo is in place, I can give further guidance in how to proceed.
>>> Thank you.
>>> Cheers,
>>> Ao Qi
>>>> [1]

More information about the mips-port mailing list