[bug#64670] [PATCH 0/1] Fixing failing builds of openjdk on aarch64

[bug#64670] [PATCH 0/1] Fixing failing builds of openjdk on aarch64

[Tim Johann]

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

[bug#64671] [PATCH 1/1] gnu: openjdk: patches for aarch64 build (openjdk9|openjdk10).

[Tim Johann]

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

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

[bug#64671] ignore

[Tim Johann]

close 64671

[bug#64670] [PATCH 1/1] gnu: openjdk: patches for aarch64 build (openjdk9|openjdk10).

[Tim Johann]

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

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

[bug#64670] This seems to be a duplicate issue to the on by Christopher Baines.

[Tim Johann]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 208 bytes --]

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 #1.2: Type: text/html, Size: 1521 bytes --]

[bug#64670] referenced patch does not apply to openjdk10

[Tim Johann]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 512 bytes --]

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 #1.2: Type: text/html, Size: 2029 bytes --]

bug#64670: referenced patch does not apply to openjdk10

[Efraim Flashner]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1190 bytes --]

On Fri, Aug 11, 2023 at 12:56:30PM +0200, Tim Johann wrote:
> 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>   רנשלפ םירפא
GPG key = A28B F40C 3E55 1372 662D  14F7 41AA E7DC CA3D 8351
Confidentiality cannot be guaranteed on emails sent or received unencrypted

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]

[bug#64670] referenced patch does not apply to openjdk10

[Tim Johann]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 16 bytes --]

Thanks, Efraim!