Hello,

On 2017-11-09 15:26, Thomas Stüfe wrote:
Do you think this for all platforms or just for Windows? With removed, do you really mean the feature removed, not just the default changed?

I mean for all platforms. I don't see any point in the build wasting time on zipping up the debug symbols which also makes them unusable. If someone cries out we could leave the feature in, but I would much rather not. Note that the bundle target has to unzip them again to put them in the symbols bundle, which is the final deliverable of the symbols.

Historically there have been various reasons for this zipping internally to Oracle, but I don't think any of those reasons hold up anymore in our current JDK 10 infrastructure.

/Erik
Thomas

On Thu 9. Nov 2017 at 19:58, Erik Joelsson <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:

    I agree that the zipped debug symbols are just annoying and should be
    removed.

    /Erik


    On 2017-11-08 22:32, Thomas Stüfe wrote:
    > Hi all,
    >
    > I could reframe the subject matter as "how do you internally at
    Oracle
    > build the Windows JDK"?
    >
    > I had several discussions with people from Oracle about missing
    callstacks
    > in hs-err files on Windows generated in tests which run at Oracle.
    >
    > I recently did JDK-8185712, which improves the Windows symbol
    decoder, so I
    > feel somewhat responsible. However, I was never able to
    reproduce anything
    > - here at SAP, we get nice callstacks and all works well.
    >
    > A simple explanation may be that you at Oracle either remove the
    debug info
    > (pdb files) from the images before testing and/or build
    > with -with_native_debug_symbols=zipped . The latter zips the pdb
    files,
    > which in that form are useless. Which is it?
    >
    > For that matter, do you think -with_native_debug_symbols=zipped
    makes sense
    > on Windows? Would it not make more sense to make the default
    > -with_native_debug_symbols=external on Windows, to have pdb
    files ready for
    > debugging and testing?
    >
    > Thanks, Thomas


Reply via email to