On Tue, 12 Mar 2024 15:04:56 GMT, Magnus Ihse Bursie <i...@openjdk.org> wrote:

>> Is Open XL C/C++ considered a compiler or more akin to a development 
>> environment like Xcode is for macOS? Depending on which, we could just say 
>> clang is the compiler for AIX without needing to say that Open XL is treated 
>> like clang, etc
>> 
>> Also, why did this remove the link to the Supported Build Platforms page?
>
>> Is Open XL C/C++ considered a compiler or more akin to a development 
>> environment like Xcode is for macOS? Depending on which, we could just say 
>> clang is the compiler for AIX without needing to say that Open XL is treated 
>> like clang, etc
> 
> You are raising a good point. Our current concept of "toolchain" is not 
> working as smoothly as it should be. We should probably split it into 
> "toolchain environment" (or whatever), like Xcode or Open XL, and "toolchain 
> compiler" (like clang), and/or possibly also some concept of "toolchain sdk".
> 
> The work you are doing of untangling Windows from Visual Studio would 
> probably influence such a redesign, seeing what part of the Windows adaptions 
> which arise from cl, and which are constant given that you compile for 
> windows (like the Windows SDK).
> 
> But this is a more architectural issue that will need to be resolved in 
> another PR, and probably discussed quite a bit beforehand.

> why did this remove the link to the Supported Build Platforms page?

You make it sound like it is a bad thing, but in fact I promoted the AIX build 
to be of the same status as all other platforms. I cowardly did not put 
anything specific about the AIX build in the readme before, but just referred 
to the wiki. Now I decided we should actually treat this as a proper platform 
and describe the compiler version in the readme, since it is checked in 
configure, just like all other platforms.

There is still a link to the Supported Build Platforms wiki page in the general 
part of the readme.

-------------

PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/18172#discussion_r1521642995

Reply via email to