[NEW BUG]: Configure broken on MIPS (original) (raw)

Magnus Ihse Bursie magnus.ihse.bursie at oracle.com
Fri Mar 23 15:58:19 UTC 2018

On 2018-03-23 11:05, David Holmes wrote:

On 23/03/2018 7:54 PM, Magnus Ihse Bursie wrote:

On 2018-03-23 09:55, David Holmes wrote: On 23/03/2018 6:46 PM, Magnus Ihse Bursie wrote:

On 2018-03-23 06:22, David Holmes wrote: Hi Thomas,

On 23/03/2018 2:55 PM, Thomas Stüfe wrote: Hi David,

would it not be pragmatic to accept Ao's patch - it looks fine to me - since it certainly would not make matters worse. And let Magnus follow up with a cleanup change later? Well I hope Magnus's change is forthcoming. It might be some time still. I'm working on a complete overhaul of all CFLAGS and LDFLAGS, where this is a part of that picture, but I was not planning on addressing just this thing urgently. So, I think this patch will do for now. It solves the immediate problem for MIPS, and I can come back and make a cleaner solution later on. Isn't the best quick fix one that only adds -m64 for x86? I recall  a report that arm32 is similarly broken. Not really, because this is also needed on some other platforms, at least s390x, as I recall. (This was the reason it was originally added.) According to gcc docs there are 4 archs that use m64 and we only care about 2 of them: m64: SPARC Options m64: S/390 and zSeries Options m64: RS/6000 and PowerPC Options m64: i386 and x86-64 Options Note that this logic also applies to the xlc compiler, not only gcc. I also believe that solstudio requires it on sparcv9, but I'm not 100% sure.

But you need to know whether you are dealing with S390 or S390x as m64 implies zSeries. We only support s390x (64-bit), not s390.

And OpenJDK still support ppc64, even if Oracle does not test it. So I'd say that we need -m64 on all those platforms listed. So then the question is, is it easier to check if it's one of four, or not one of tree known CPU architectures. (For mips, we shouldn't test OPENJDK_TARGET_CPU for a lot of mips*, but OPENJDK_TARGET_CPU_ARCH for mips). For me, it's like, whatever. I'll probably rewrite this from the ground up anywhat. What we're trying to express here is that some flags are needed as CFLAGS always, even when running configure checks. It has really nothing to do with the number of CPU bits.

/Magnus

Ao will need a sponsor to create a bug etc regardless of which way this goes. My week is over. :) Cheers, David

/Magnus

David ----- AFAICS it's as easy to write this only for x86 as it is to exclude it for non x86. Honestly I don't know why the Aarch64 patch was done the way it was - there must be some subtlety here that I'm not aware of. I think it was just the smallest patch that worked for the aarch64 platform. I didn't spend time arguing about the fix, since it is supposed to be short-lived anyway. /Magnus

More information about the build-dev mailing list