JEP 175: Integrate PowerPC/AIX Port into JDK 8

David Holmes david.holmes at
Sat Feb 2 04:42:42 PST 2013

On 2/02/2013 9:03 PM, Volker Simonis wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 1, 2013 at 8:11 PM, Phil Race <philip.race at
> <mailto:philip.race at>> wrote:
> As previously discussed on porters-dev the current target is not the first
> JDK 8 release but rather the first non-security update (i.e.
> something like JDK 8u2)
>     Given the scale and timing, isn't JDK 9 a more appropriate target ?
>     The goal of a JDK 8 update 2, *should* be stabilisation, and this
>     sounds rather the opposite.
>     It also introduces logistic issues like ramping up infrastructure
>     which in my experience can't solved all that quickly.
> Well, the MacOS X port made it into 7u4 and we're of course keen to do
> it better:)

That's probably not likely. The first update is generally intended to be 
a stabilization update (bug fixes only) as 7u2 was. So 8u4 seems the 
more likely target. Certainly I would like to see this come about well 
before Java 9 though.

That said the simple logistics of repository management means the 
integration may not be able to start for some time. Until there is a 
forked forest where these changes can be integrated without affecting 
earlier updates (unduly) then it can't start. Historically that would 
not happen until after 8u2 has been frozen, but that might not leave 
enough time till 8u4. There may be some changes needed to how the 8u 
project is setup and handled. And I guess the 8u project needs to come 
into existence first as well.

I think the "risks" are a little under-stated. You have changed shared 
code and that potentially impacts all platforms (unless you have only 
added new functions unused on existing platforms?). There is also the 
matter of the "elephant in the room" - the existing proprietary PPC port 
that Oracle has for Java SE Embedded. Someone (from Oracle of course) 
will have to see how the proposed structure of the new port will impact 
the existing closed port. It might be a non-issue, or  a major issue - 
most likely somewhere in between.

I am also hoping that this will not simply be a copy'n'modify port as we 
have seen in the past. The proliferation of platform ifdefs in shared 
code is truly horrendous; as is the duplication across the purportedly 
platform-specific code. This problem wasn't addressed for the Mac port 
but in my opinion (and that is all it is) it needs to be before the 
community accepts any further ports.

I'd also like to understand the proposed maintenance model going 
forward. We (in Oracle) already have to accommodate our closed ports 
when they are affected by changes to common code that requires 
per-platform changes as well. Who will be providing the changes needed 
for aix-ppc? And how will that happen?

Again I think the big picture issues need to discussed on jdk8-dev (or 
perhaps it is time to start jdk8u-dev?) before getting into changeset 
specifics for hotspot and core-libs.


> What do you mean with "ramping up infrastructure":
>   - hardware resources (like test/build infrastructure)?
>   - human resources within Oracle?
>   - human resources within IBM/SAP?
> I think we have most of these allocated (except the Oracle part which I
> can not speak about:)
>     -phil.
>     On 2/1/2013 5:57 AM, Volker Simonis wrote:
>         On Fri, Feb 1, 2013 at 12:15 PM, David Holmes
>         <david.holmes at <mailto:david.holmes at>>__wrote:
>             On 1/02/2013 8:11 PM, mark.reinhold at
>             <mailto:mark.reinhold at> wrote:
>                 Posted:*__*175
>                 <**175><
>                 <>>
>             I'm forced to send this to porters-dev but I do not
>             subscribe to that list
>             (so it will probably get held up).
>             Given the way the JEP tasks have been split it would seem
>             much more
>             appropriate to me for discussions to occur on hotspot-dev
>             and core-libs-dev
>             as this, as the JEP says, is about the integration effort
>             not the porting
>             effort.
>         Yes, I agree. I just wanted to wait until the JEP was published
>         before
>         posting it to the appropriate lists
>             That said this is also relevant to jdk8-dev, also cc'd, as
>             it affects all
>             JDK 8 development. I have trouble seeing how such a large
>             effort can be
>             assimilated within the timeframes of the Java 8 schedule.
>         As previously discussed on porters-dev the current target is not
>         the first
>         JDK 8 release but rather the first non-security update (i.e.
>         something like
>         JDK 8u2)
>         Regards,
>         Volker
>         David
>                - Mark

More information about the porters-dev mailing list