Keith W. Campbell

The options can't be too different or the build would have failed (if openjdk used xlc 17 options that xlc 16 doesn't understand), although it's possible that OpenJ9 or OMR...

I don't see anything that's sensitive to the version of xlc (other than the warning that 16.1 is unsupported), got an example?

Yes `ibm-clang` is very different from `xlc` (which openjdk mistakenly refers to as ["Open XL"](https://github.com/ibmruntimes/openj9-openjdk-jdk/blob/openj9/doc/building.md#native-compiler-toolchain-requirements)).

It's my understanding that `ibm-clang` is the name of an executable in "Open XL"; IBM doesn't refer to the toolchain that includes `xlc` as "Open" (even though openjdk does) -...

The complaint has been upgraded to an error; see https://openj9-jenkins.osuosl.org/job/Build_JDKnext_ppc64_aix_OpenJDK/635 where the configure step fails: ``` [2024-03-15T14:50:21.167Z] configure: Using default toolchain clang (clang/LLVM) [2024-03-15T14:50:21.167Z] configure: Will use user supplied compiler...

I started an internal build with [8327701: Remove the xlc toolchain](https://github.com/ibmruntimes/openj9-openjdk-jdk/commit/ceeb8571963012d55755ad7d875b5fedb93e7db1) reverted. It has gotten past the configuration issue. I'll create a pull request for that change if all goes...

Internally, it didn't go as smoothly as I had hoped: trying externally via https://github.com/ibmruntimes/openj9-openjdk-jdk/pull/757.

We need not delay use of OpenXL 17 until OpenJ9 and OMR can build with that compiler; jdknext can be configured using `--with-openj9-cc` and `--with-openj9-cxx` so OpenJ9 and OMR can...

Even if we did have suitable machines, I wouldn't expect them to be updated immediately, so I suggest https://github.com/ibmruntimes/openj9-openjdk-jdk/pull/757 be merged for now; we can revert those changes when we...

I'm concerned that some logic errors crept into #19648; for example: * in `getClassSignatureLength()`, I don't think it properly computes the length for `[J` (or an array where the final...