Current Status of OpenJDK 8 for mips64el
andrey.petushkov at gmail.com
Wed Aug 29 14:47:21 UTC 2018
> On 29 Aug 2018, at 17:05, Ao Qi <aoqi at loongson.cn> wrote:
> Andrey Petushkov <andrey.petushkov at gmail.com <mailto:andrey.petushkov at gmail.com>> 于2018年8月28日周二 下午10:37写道：
>> On 28 Aug 2018, at 09:33, Magnus Ihse Bursie <magnus.ihse.bursie at oracle.com> wrote:
>> 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
>> 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.
>> Hi guys,
>> Indeed yes, Azul Systems develops mips32 port based on Loongson mips64 code. Naturally our supported java version is also 8u. And yes, we’d like to as well contribute our code along with mips64 code from Loongson. Of more precisely, on top, since we have chosen the #ifdef way. So that requires Loongson to be the first to put the code into the repos
> Hi Andrey Petushkov,
> Glad to hear that! Could you tell what is the current status of your
> mips32 port?
The port is almost complete for template interpreter and c2. We’re in bug-fixing phase now
We did not yet started c1. specifically in order to avoid clash with your implementation during the merge
> I have tried to "put the code into the repos" for some time. It is
> really a hard work and may take a long time. If Azul and Loongson want
> to use the same repo, I think we should start early. I am afraid it
> would be hard work to put our codes into one repo after we develop our
> own repos for years. I cannot say when our code can be accepted by
> upstream, but I think It won't happen soon. Before that, a repo
> somewhere outside OpenJDK may be a choice.
Soon we’ll be running our own code clearance tests so the results might be be helpful for you as well, since it should fix (or prove there are no) some of the concerns OpenJDK government is imposing on the contributions. We’ll let you know the results once they are ready
We did not consider contributing into external repos, although it might make sense. Please let us discuss that internally first
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the porters-dev