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

David Holmes david.holmes at oracle.com
Mon Mar 26 04:38:48 UTC 2018

https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8200213

Sponsoring.

David

On 26/03/2018 12:50 PM, Ao Qi wrote:

2018-03-23 18:05 GMT+08:00 David Holmes <david.holmes at oracle.com>:

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 But you need to know whether you are dealing with S390 or S390x as m64 implies zSeries. Ao will need a sponsor to create a bug etc regardless of which way this goes. Is it possible to accept my patch first (before a perfect all-platform solution is made)? If yes, could someone help to create a bug etc? Thanks! 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