[aarch64-port-dev ] RFR: 8168503 JEP 297: Unified arm32/arm64 Port (original) (raw)

Andrew Haley aph at redhat.com
Thu Mar 16 18:27:49 UTC 2017

On 16/03/17 18:03, Bob Vandette wrote:

I agree that this is an issue but I’m not sure that it’s a show stopper.

The Oracle build will not have OpenJDK in the version string which will help to differentiate our binaries from OpenJDK builds.

Right, like I said.

The bug database field that I think you are describing is only an indication of the architecture that a bug can be reproduced on. It is not meant to describe the sources that were used to produce the binaries or where the binaries came from. That should to be specified elsewhere in the bug report.

OK. I would surely have tried to insist that the version strings were different for our two ports at the time your port was committed, but I blew my chance.

I don’t like the idea of listing arm64 in the version string since we are only using arm64 internally to trigger the use of the hotspot “arm” directory. We’d also end up with lots of incorrect bug entries since folks will fail to use arm64 to report a bug in the Oracle 64-bit ARM port running on an aarch64 based system.

If we start putting build configuration information in the version string, then where do we stop.

It's going to be rather horrible, though. How do we reproduce a bug if we don't know what port is causing the bug? How do we even ask the question if we don't know what the ports are called? I always assumed we were "aarch64" and you were "arm64". How are we to ask a user if we can't tell them what to look for?

Even if we don't change anything in OpenJDK itself, we'll still have to agree on a label to use in the bug database. I don't know what labels we should use, but we should agree on them now. Do you have any preferences?

Andrew.

More information about the hotspot-dev mailing list