You are right Jon, it is rather easy to do. I just pushed boot_cycle.sh into build-infra.
You can do: sh common/bin/boot_cycle.sh and it will create boot_cycle_1 in build, and build the complete product there (including images) then it will create boot_cycle_2 and configure it to use boot_cycle_1 as the boot jdk. You can also add explicit configure arguments: sh common/bin/boot_cycle.sh --with-jvm-variants=server --with-boot-jdk=….. and it will use the arguments to the configure invocations. The --with-boot-jdk= is of course adjusted for the second cycle. This boot_cycle.sh script has already demonstrated that --enable-debug generates binaries that crash on linux x64…… :-) something that we have to fix. //Fredrik 10 sep 2012 kl. 17:09 skrev Jonathan Gibbons: > Using SKIP_BOOT_CYCLE=false has often flushed out bugs, and I would be > concerned about its removal. > > Is it really that hard to provide the same functionality in the new build > system? Surely, it should just be a matter of a couple of recursive makes at > the top-level, the first into an "interim" build dir and the second using the > result of the first as its ALT_BOOTDIR. > > -- Jon > > > On 09/10/2012 04:43 AM, Magnus Ihse Bursie wrote: >> In the old system, one can set the oddly named SKIP_BOOT_CYCLE to false >> (which, internally, sets the slightly more clearly named >> DO_BOOT_CYCLE=true). This causes the product to build twice, the second time >> using the first build result as the boot jdk. >> >> This has been used, as I understand it, as a "poor mans integration test" -- >> if the build output could perform the feat of compiling the JDK, then it >> can't be that broken. >> >> This kind of behaviour is not implemented in the new build system, and I >> propose that it should not be. The cost for implementing this is that all >> build system for all builds will be more complicated, but the gains are more >> unclear. To me, this is just a test, and it's a bit odd to have that as part >> of the build system. I also believe are now far better tests using jtreg, >> and if they are lacking -- then the tests should be improved, not the build >> system changed. >> >> Is there anyone who would be protesting if the SKIP_BOOT_CYCLE functionality >> would be dropped in the new build system? >> >> /Magnus >
