[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       openjdk-2d-dev
Subject:    Re: [OpenJDK 2D-Dev] RFR: Bug Pending: Build fails to compile jchuff.c
From:       David Holmes <david.holmes () oracle ! com>
Date:       2018-01-24 1:59:20
Message-ID: 6b6d1846-8d5e-8af0-8813-ad2eb51a38a9 () oracle ! com
[Download RAW message or body]

Hi Adam,

The wiki:

https://wiki.openjdk.java.net/display/Build/Supported+Build+Platforms

should have been updated for 10, and I expect it will be updated for 11 
as we are looking to update all of the "official" tool chains. Given the 
official gcc version for 9 was already 4.9.2 I don't think it necessary 
to support 4.8.5 in 10 or 11. Given the new update model it is unclear 
to me whether it makes sense to make this change in the 9u forest, but 
at most I think this should only be in 8u and 9u.

Thanks,
David

On 24/01/2018 3:18 AM, Adam Farley8 wrote:
> > On 01/23/2018  05:25 PM, Adam Farley8 wrote:
> > > > SLE-11:*   doesn't even have OpenJDK-8 and is also going to be out of support
> > > > next  year  anyway.
> > > 
> > > Does  this mean the gcc version will change? If you have hard information on
> > > this,  I'd appreciate the URL.
> > 
> > I'm not sure  what you mean. SLE12-SP3 ships gcc-4.8.x while SLE-15 will
> > ship gcc-7,  see:
> > 
> > > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__build.opensuse.org_package_ \
> > > view-5Ffile_SUSE-3ASLE-2D15-3AGA_gcc_gcc.spec-3Fexpand-3D1&d=DwIC-g&c=jf_iaSHvJO \
> > > bTbx-siA1ZOg&r=P5m8KWUXJf-CeVJc0hDGD9AQ2LkcXDC0PMV9ntVw5Ho&m=dIGHRmVpTLUCdNXpk5OeZoRTr4KMZfiyFp7leAxQ1x4&s=kvSfKGn4zfKUDx14bZlDZsWrY3uorXE_6lBuTmOMchw&e= \
> > > 
> 
> > 
> > Is that what  you mean when you say the gcc version is changing?
> 
> Apologies, I was unclear. I was asking if the minimum gcc version on 
> David's
> website was likely to change when SLE11 went out of service. From what 
> you're
> telling me, the sles 11 bit on the site will likely be updated to sles 12,
> and the gcc version won't change (as you're saying SLE12 ships with 4.8.x).
> 
> > 
> > > If the  minimum gcc version for 10 or 11 is above 4.8.5 across all platforms,
> > > then  I agree, but I don't have that information, so I figured I'd ask to
> > > cover  all of the JDK versions, to be safe.
> > 
> > I don't know  what the minimum version is at the moment, to be honest. I haven't
> > tried building  OpenJDK-10 or OpenJDK-11 on SLE-12:SP3 yet. I could do that
> > if that's  important.
> > 
> > > Even  if the gcc version does change, adding 4.8.5-specific code shouldn't
> > > break  anything.
> > 
> > It most likely  doesn't break anything. But it leaves workaround in the code
> > base which  we could potentially forget to clean out later when it is no
> > longer needed.
> 
> Agreed. I was hedging my bets on the gcc version not changing. Be good 
> if we had
> some reliable intel on the minimum gcc version that we could use to make a
> decision.
> 
> > 
> > > What  do you think?
> > 
> > My opinion  is that the codebase for OpenJDK-11 should be kept clean because
> > we are working  on getting rid of unnecessary cruft. But this decision isn't
> > up to me,  of course. I'm just arguing that I consider the chances that someone
> > will try OpenJDK-11  on SLE-12:SP3 or even SLE-11:SP4 very low.
> > 
> > Adrian
> 
> A reasonable opinion. I may disagree with your conclusions, but you present
> your arguments well.
> 
> Could others on this email chain act as tie breaker on the jdk10+11 
> matter please?
> 
> Best Regards
> 
> Adam Farley
> 
> Unless stated otherwise above:
> IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with number 
> 741598.
> Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6 3AU


[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]