#174 Add riscv64 support
Closed 3 months ago by jvanek. Opened 4 months ago by u2fsdgvkx1.
Unknown source rawhide  into  rawhide

file modified
+9 -2
@@ -104,7 +104,7 @@

  # Set of architectures for which we build fastdebug builds

  %global fastdebug_arches x86_64 ppc64le aarch64

  # Set of architectures with a Just-In-Time (JIT) compiler

- %global jit_arches      %{arm} %{aarch64} %{ix86} %{power64} s390x sparcv9 sparc64 x86_64

+ %global jit_arches      %{arm} %{aarch64} %{ix86} %{power64} s390x sparcv9 sparc64 x86_64 riscv64

  # Set of architectures which use the Zero assembler port (!jit_arches)

  %global zero_arches ppc s390

  # Set of architectures which support SystemTap tapsets
@@ -249,6 +249,10 @@

  %global archinstall aarch64

  %global stapinstall arm64

  %endif

+ %ifarch riscv64

+ %global archinstall riscv64

+ %global stapinstall riscv64

+ %endif

  # 32 bit sparc, optimized for v9

  %ifarch sparcv9

  %global archinstall sparc
@@ -324,7 +328,7 @@

  %global top_level_dir_name   %{vcstag}

  %global top_level_dir_name_backup %{top_level_dir_name}-backup

  %global buildver        7

- %global rpmrelease      1

+ %global rpmrelease      2

  # Priority must be 8 digits in total; up to openjdk 1.8, we were using 18..... so when we moved to 11, we had to add another digit

  %if %is_system_jdk

  # Using 10 digits may overflow the int used for priority, so we combine the patch and build versions
@@ -2419,6 +2423,9 @@

  %endif

  

  %changelog

+ * Wed Feb 21 2024 Songsong Zhang <U2FsdGVkX1@gmail.com> - 1:11.0.22.0.7-2

+ - Add riscv64 support

+ 

  * Sat Jan 27 2024 Jiri Vanek <jvanek@redhat.com> - 1:11.0.22.0.7-1

  - updated to OpenJDK 11.0.22 (2024-01-16)

  - removed removal of /test/jdk/sun/management/jmxremote/bootstrap/solaris-sparcv9/launcher

Build succeeded.
https://fedora.softwarefactory-project.io/zuul/buildset/d738cf3c8d8c44a5b7208d4e5d13fb48

Hello! Thanx a lot!

Why are you starting with jdk11?

Also, maybe you missed it, but java-11-openjdk currently does nothing. the build is done in java-11-openjdk-portable. I think the push have to go there (well and also there, to make it sane)

Normal patch flow is java-latest-openjdk(-portable) -> java-21-openjdk(-portable) -> java-17-openjdk(-portable) -> java-11-openjdk(-portable) -> java-1.8.0-openjdk(-portable)

Is it applicable?

Just a note that upstream JDK has (or should soon have) full RISC-V native support, which was also backported to some stable branches.. The "zero" assembler is only needed on very old JDK.

https://openjdk.org/jeps/422

Right. But I really have to celar why this is landing to jdk11 and into rpms.
IIUC, this patchmust go first to java-latest-openjdk-portable. Once it is built, thsi patch (due tostaps) msut go also to java-latest-openjdk, so the repack of portables to rpms is done correctly.

Then the patch can flow to jdk21 (again both portables and rpms) then to 17 (again both) and only after that, it will land to (both) 11. I would probably vote against pushing it to jdk8, unles syou really inistss. I cna do the backporting on y our behalf, the spefiles are nearly identical.

Maybe it is not clear, but we build jdk in java-xyz-openjdk-portable packages, and rpms java-xyz-openjdk just repack the content. In addition, we build portable jdk only once in oldest live fedora (and in rawhide for sake of completeness). If there will be new architecture in fedora, then of course another build will be added

I had merged yours PR in java-latest-openjdk-portbale and ported it to java-21-openjdk-portbale.
Will continue over jdk17 and down here.

After the portables will be built, I will start withnon portable rpms hth.

fue to conflict applied manually, with full credit.

Pull-Request has been closed by jvanek

3 months ago
Metadata