On 2018-09-19 09:25, Robin Westberg wrote:
Hi Erik,
On 14 Sep 2018, at 19:21, Erik Joelsson <erik.joels...@oracle.com> wrote:
Main.gmk:888: I think you meant to add test-compile-commands here, which also
requires you to define that target.
Fixed, the tests are now invoked from a top-level target. I also added a second
test to ensure that the no-build-libraries property of this actually stays
intact.
This is ok, but the test will fail unless run from a clean output dir. This
should probably be noted in a comment at least.
Yes, good point, I tried briefly to include a clean as a prerequisite target to
the test, but it refused to execute sequentially. But perhaps it’s good enough
with a comment, added one.
Yes, the clean target is treated specially before entering Main.gmk, to
ensure commands like "make clean all" gets executed correctly. A comment
is enough, I think.
In Awt2dLibraries.gmk, I think lines 733 and 735 needs to be fixed as well.
Using FindLib is generally a good idea for this. I suspect there may be more
such instances sprinkled around the makefiles.
Only fixed the last one, I think the first one is ok as is?
The first one is sort of OK, but it's a questionable construct as the
$(BUILD_LIBAWT_XAWT) variable may contain additional targets. We used to do it
that way but these days I prefer the more explicit and precise FindLib. In this
particular case you get a non needed dependency added when running
compile-commands with ENABLE_HEADLESS_ONLY=true, which will not really affect
anything so it doesn't really matter.
Yeah I certainly agree, but a quick grep shows that there’s about 50 such
constructs present right now. I wouldn’t mind cleaning those up, but perhaps
that should be in a separate change?
If that does not affect your patch, you do not need to clean up those
constructs.
I've now looked through your patch. Overall, it looks good. Some minor
comments:
* In make/CompileCommands.gmk, are you sure the find -exec + construct
does not exceed command line limits on problematic platforms such as
Solaris and Windows?
The AWT constructs also confuses me. Maybe you can expand a bit on the
comment, because it really is non-trivial. You are executing a cp for
each tmpfile you find? But what if you find multiple tmpfiles? There
could certainly be multiple commands using @ constructs?
* In make/Main.gmk, you can just do "($(CD) $(OUTPUTDIR) && $(RM) -r
build*.log* compile_commands.json)" on a single line.
* In make/common/MakeBase.gmk: I'd prefer if these functions were move
to make/common/JdkNativeCompilation.gmk, close to the FindSrcDirsForLib
etc definitions.
* In make/common/NativeCompilation.gmk, I'm not entirely happy with the
$1_OBJ_COMMON_OPTIONS_PRE/POST construct. I understand what you are
trying to achieve, but I think this gets very hard to read. I don't have
a perfect solution in mind. But perhaps something like this:
$1_DEPS_OPTIONS := $$($1_DEP_FLAG) $$($1_DEP).tmp
$1_COMPILE_COMMAND := $$($1_COMPILER) $$($1_FLAGS) $$($1_DEPS_OPTIONS)
$(CC_OUT_OPTION)$$($1_OBJ) $$($1_SRC_FILE))
and for the compile commands, use $$(filter-out $$($1_DEPS_OPTIONS),
$$($1_COMPILE_COMMAND)).
Perhaps some unification with the Microsoft toolchain is possible by
setting $1_DEPS_OPTIONS to -showIncludes.
Erik, what do you think?
* In make/lib/Lib-jdk.accessibility.gmk, this seems double incorrect.
You are missing a libjawt path segment. And you wanted to use FindStaticLib.
Overall, I believe we're misusing the "static lib" concept on Windows.
The .lib files are not static libs, the way we mean it on unixes.
Instead, the lib files is some kind of metadata on dll that are used
when linking with those dlls. So we should introduce a better concept
for these, and maybe something like FindLibDescriptor (or whatever).
That should not really be part of this fix, though, so for the moment
I'm going to accept that we call these "static libs" on Windows.
This also makes me wonder how much testing this patch has recieved? I
know a broken dependency in the worst case only shows up as a race, but
have you verified it thoroughly even on Windows? And even without
compile_commands?
/Magnus
Otherwise this looks good now.
Thanks, I’ll include the latest webrevs with a comment added:
Incremental: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~rwestberg/8210459/webrev.01-02/
Full: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~rwestberg/8210459/webrev.02/
Best regards,
Robin
/Erik
Webrev (incremental):
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~rwestberg/8210459/webrev.00-01/
Webrev (full): http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~rwestberg/8210459/webrev.01/
Testing: tier1, builds-tier5
Best regards,
Robin
/Erik
On 2018-09-10 06:36, Robin Westberg wrote:
Hi all,
Please review the following change that adds support for generating compile_commands.json
as a top-level make target. This is a popular format for describing how to compile object
files for a project, and is defined in [1]. This file can be used directly by IDEs such
as Visual Studio Code and CLion as well as "language servers" such as cquery
[2] and rtags [3].
While it’s currently possible to generate this file as part of a full build
(using tools such as Bear [4], or simply parsing .cmdline files), this change
aims to make it possible to generate the compile commands data without actually
compiling the object files. This means that it’s for example possible to start
using an IDE fairly quickly on freshly cloned source, instead of having to wait
for a full build to complete.
This was originally inspired by the work done in [5] by Mikael Gerdin and Erik
Joelsson, but has been through a few revisions since then. Erik has also
provided a lot of assistance with the current version, thanks Erik!
Issue: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8210459
Webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~rwestberg/8210459/webrev.00/
Testing: tier1, builds-tier5
Best regards,
Robin
[1] https://clang.llvm.org/docs/JSONCompilationDatabase.html
[2] https://github.com/cquery-project/cquery
[3] https://github.com/Andersbakken/rtags
[4] https://github.com/rizsotto/Bear
[5] http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/hotspot-dev/2017-March/026354.html
