On Tue, 23 Jul 2024 13:55:06 GMT, fitzsim <d...@openjdk.org> wrote: > To check this, I > [added](https://github.com/fitzsim/jdk/commits/regenerate-sleef-headers-2/) > the `riscv64` `CMake` steps to `SleefCommon.gmk`. > > I had intended to factor out `SetupSleefHeader` anyway for `aarch64`, to > eliminate copy-n-paste. > > After that, there was one build step divergence for `riscv64` for the naming > of the helper header. > > The two `riscv64` commits are: > > * [copy > `helperrvv.h`](https://github.com/fitzsim/jdk/commit/bcd3813ca97f6308838ee93bcb5c02d9cd37375a) > * [add `riscv64` support to > `SleefCommon.gmk`](https://github.com/fitzsim/jdk/commit/21e0369682095422f45015d817410d07c711b8c0)
Thanks for your effort, this is much better. Just one question in my mind. If there is no major refactoring in sleef in the future, I think we're fine. In case there is such refactoring in sleef's implementation, the maintanance will not be a minor work, as in [This branch](https://github.com/fitzsim/jdk/commits/regenerate-sleef-headers-1/) we need to migrate some process inside sleef into jdk? But I'm not sure, maybe others can comment on this question. And I think we can move the discussion about [This branch](https://github.com/fitzsim/jdk/commits/regenerate-sleef-headers-1/) to https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/pull/19185, as finally this part of code will be pushed into jdk via that pr (because of legal process reason), I hope persons involved in that pr do not miss the discussion and information here. ------------- PR Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/18605#issuecomment-2247244342
