[PATCH 0/1] Fixing failing builds of openjdk on aarch64

Done

Details

2 participants

Efraim Flashner
Tim Johann

Owner: unassigned

Submitted by: Tim Johann

Severity: normal

Tim Johann wrote on 16 Jul 2023 22:35

Recipients:(address . guix-patches@gnu.org)(name . Tim Johann)(address . t1m@phrogstar.de)

Message-ID:20230716203552.180767-1-t1m@phrogstar.de

When I wanted to install Clojure on my Raspberry Pis, I was stumped to see

that there was no installable version of openjdk available on aarch64. Seeing

the build fail, I saw that this was a very simple issue fixed in openjdk11

(cf.: [1] and [2]). So, I created a patch and applied it to openjdk9 and

openjdk10, after which I was able to build openjdk@9.181, openjdk@10.46, and

openjdk@11.0.17 successfully on one of my RPis. I hope that subsequently all

versions of openjdk can be built on aarch64.

[1] https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8237885

[2] https://hg.openjdk.org/jdk-updates/jdk11u/rev/15cc1c8a6371).

Tim Johann (1):

gnu: openjdk: patches for aarch64 build (openjdk9|openjdk10).

gnu/packages/java.scm | 6 ++++--

.../openjdk-10-duplicate-using-declaration.patch | 15 +++++++++++++++

.../openjdk-9-duplicate-using-declaration.patch | 15 +++++++++++++++

3 files changed, 34 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

create mode 100644 gnu/packages/patches/openjdk-10-duplicate-using-declaration.patch

create mode 100644 gnu/packages/patches/openjdk-9-duplicate-using-declaration.patch

base-commit: 796c823a0d1d0aec9f4af908eca462e58e5675b5

2.41.0

Tim Johann wrote on 16 Jul 2023 23:16

[PATCH 1/1] gnu: openjdk: patches for aarch64 build (openjdk9|openjdk10).

Recipients:(address . 64670@debbugs.gnu.org)(name . Tim Johann)(address . t1m@phrogstar.de)

Message-ID:20230716211629.181979-1-t1m@phrogstar.de

OpenJDK source code prior to version 11 have a duplicate 'using' statement
in hotspot's interp_masm_aarch64.hpp, which let's compilation of
openjdk@9.181 fail on aarch64, and in consequence all openjdk versions,
since each version larger than major 9 depends on the next lower major
version of openjdk.

This patch will make openjdk available on aarch64, again.

* gnu/packages/java.scm (openjdk9|openjdk10)[source](patches): adding patches
to remove duplicate 'using' statements causing build to fail on aarch64.
* gnu/packages/patches/openjdk-9-duplicate-using-declaration.patch,
gnu/packages/patches/openjdk-10-duplicate-using-declaration.patch: New files
---
 gnu/packages/java.scm                             |  6 ++++--
 .../openjdk-10-duplicate-using-declaration.patch  | 15 +++++++++++++++
 .../openjdk-9-duplicate-using-declaration.patch   | 15 +++++++++++++++
 3 files changed, 34 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
 create mode 100644 gnu/packages/patches/openjdk-10-duplicate-using-declaration.patch
 create mode 100644 gnu/packages/patches/openjdk-9-duplicate-using-declaration.patch

Toggle diff (68 lines)diff --git a/gnu/packages/java.scm b/gnu/packages/java.scm
index 5a6288581e..69c4e604a8 100644
--- a/gnu/packages/java.scm
+++ b/gnu/packages/java.scm
@@ -873,7 +873,8 @@ (define-public openjdk9
                (base32
                 "1v92nzdqx07c35x945awzir4yk0fk22vky6fpp8mq9js930sxsz0"))
               (patches (search-patches "openjdk-9-pointer-comparison.patch"
-                                       "openjdk-9-setsignalhandler.patch"))))
+                                       "openjdk-9-setsignalhandler.patch"
+                                       "openjdk-9-duplicate-using-declaration.patch"))))
     (build-system gnu-build-system)
     (outputs '("out" "jdk" "doc"))
     (arguments
@@ -1060,7 +1061,8 @@ (define-public openjdk10
               (patches (search-patches
                         "openjdk-10-idlj-reproducibility.patch"
                         "openjdk-10-pointer-comparison.patch"
-                        "openjdk-10-setsignalhandler.patch"))))
+                        "openjdk-10-setsignalhandler.patch"
+                        "openjdk-10-duplicate-using-declaration.patch"))))
     (arguments
      (substitute-keyword-arguments (package-arguments openjdk9)
        ((#:phases phases)
diff --git a/gnu/packages/patches/openjdk-10-duplicate-using-declaration.patch b/gnu/packages/patches/openjdk-10-duplicate-using-declaration.patch
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000..48cded60e3
--- /dev/null
+++ b/gnu/packages/patches/openjdk-10-duplicate-using-declaration.patch
@@ -0,0 +1,15 @@
+Patch from changeset of openjdk11:
+https://hg.openjdk.org/jdk-updates/jdk11u/rev/15cc1c8a6371
+
+diff -u -r openjdk-10.alt/src/hotspot/cpu/aarch64/interp_masm_aarch64.hpp openjdk-10/src/hotspot/cpu/aarch64/interp_masm_aarch64.hpp
+--- openjdk-10.alt/src/hotspot/cpu/aarch64/interp_masm_aarch64.hpp	2023-07-16 14:33:27.570165136 +0200
++++ openjdk-10/src/hotspot/cpu/aarch64/interp_masm_aarch64.hpp	2023-07-16 14:34:55.325163199 +0200
+@@ -39,8 +39,6 @@
+  protected:
+ 
+  protected:
+-  using MacroAssembler::call_VM_leaf_base;
+-
+   // Interpreter specific version of call_VM_base
+   using MacroAssembler::call_VM_leaf_base;
+ 
diff --git a/gnu/packages/patches/openjdk-9-duplicate-using-declaration.patch b/gnu/packages/patches/openjdk-9-duplicate-using-declaration.patch
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000..3fa933ad36
--- /dev/null
+++ b/gnu/packages/patches/openjdk-9-duplicate-using-declaration.patch
@@ -0,0 +1,15 @@
+Patch from changeset of openjdk11:
+https://hg.openjdk.org/jdk-updates/jdk11u/rev/15cc1c8a6371
+
+diff -u -r openjdk-9.alt/hotspot/src/cpu/aarch64/vm/interp_masm_aarch64.hpp openjdk-9/hotspot/src/cpu/aarch64/vm/interp_masm_aarch64.hpp
+--- openjdk-9.alt/hotspot/src/cpu/aarch64/vm/interp_masm_aarch64.hpp	2023-07-15 19:03:09.063790084 +0200
++++ openjdk-9/hotspot/src/cpu/aarch64/vm/interp_masm_aarch64.hpp	2023-07-15 19:01:12.289447197 +0200
+@@ -39,8 +39,6 @@
+  protected:
+ 
+  protected:
+-  using MacroAssembler::call_VM_leaf_base;
+-
+   // Interpreter specific version of call_VM_base
+   using MacroAssembler::call_VM_leaf_base;
+ 
-- 
2.41.0

Tim Johann wrote on 17 Jul 2023 17:41

This seems to be a duplicate issue to the on by Christopher Baines.

Recipients:(address . 64670@debbugs.gnu.org)

Message-ID:87v8eir183.fsf@phrogstar.de

Hello,

I just found a kinda duplicate of this from May 06:

https://issues.guix.gnu.org/63327

So, why isn't this already pushed?

I'll keep this one open until one of our patches is applied.

Cheers

Tim

Attachment: file

Tim Johann wrote on 11 Aug 2023 12:56

referenced patch does not apply to openjdk10

Recipients:(address . 64670@debbugs.gnu.org)

Message-ID:871qg9aku1.fsf@phrogstar.de

Hello again,

said issue is merged (https://issues.guix.gnu.org/63327) now.

Unfortunately, it does not affect openjdk10, since it uses a different file system organisation than the former version.

I already suggested this solution to bug#63069 (https://issues.guix.gnu.org/63069) where a fix along the lines of separate patch files was proposed as a better alternative to issue #63327.

Still keeping this open until a patch for openjdk10 has been merged, too, which I would love to see soon.

Cheers

Tim

Attachment: file

Efraim Flashner wrote on 5 Oct 2023 09:26

Recipients:(name . Tim Johann)(address . t1m@phrogstar.de)(address . 64670-done@debbugs.gnu.org)

Message-ID:ZR5lPT24OiRUbSwj@3900XT

On Fri, Aug 11, 2023 at 12:56:30PM +0200, Tim Johann wrote:

Toggle quote (10 lines)> Hello again,
> 
> said issue is merged (<https://issues.guix.gnu.org/63327>) now.
> 
> Unfortunately, it does not affect openjdk10, since it uses a different file system organisation than the former version.
> 
> I already suggested this solution to bug#63069 (<https://issues.guix.gnu.org/63069>) where a fix along the lines of separate patch files was proposed as a better alternative to issue #63327.
> 
> Still keeping this open until a patch for openjdk10 has been merged, too, which I would love to see soon.

Sorry for this issue taking so long to get resolved. I've added a phase
for openjdk-10 that replaces the phase for openjdk-9 with one that uses
the updated path.  Openjdk-11 doesn't inherit from openjdk-10 so it
doesn't look like we need to override the phase there, and I didn't see
the duplicate line when I checked the source file.

I've added you as a co-author for the patch.

-- 
Efraim Flashner   <efraim@flashner.co.il>   ????? ?????
GPG key = A28B F40C 3E55 1372 662D  14F7 41AA E7DC CA3D 8351
Confidentiality cannot be guaranteed on emails sent or received unencrypted

Closed

Tim Johann wrote on 5 Oct 2023 13:47

Recipients:(name . Efraim Flashner)(address . efraim@flashner.co.il)(address . 64670-done@debbugs.gnu.org)

Message-ID:87bkddwao0.fsf@phrogstar.de

Thanks, Efraim!

Closed

Your comment

This issue is archived.

To comment on this conversation send an email to 64670@debbugs.gnu.org

To respond to this issue using the mumi CLI, first switch to it

mumi current 64670

Then, you may apply the latest patchset in this issue (with sign off)

mumi am -- -s

Or, compose a reply to this issue

mumi compose

Or, send patches to this issue

mumi send-email *.patch

is:open	open issues
is:done	closed issues
submitter:<who>	search issue submitter
author:<who>	search by message author
date:yesterday..now	search by issue date
mdate:3m..2d	search by message date