Hi Erik, maybe we can just rename the configure option to --enable-stripped-pdbs-for-bundle
AND make the default = no/false . Then without setting the configure flag, everything stays as it is for JDK vendors/distributors who do not want the stripped pdbs in the bundle. Others who set the flag, have to "teach" the developers that the bundle already contains stripped pdbs that need to be replaced by full/"private" pdbs in case better symbols/stacks are wanted . I think that’s a good compromise. > Now if MS had been kind enough to define a separate file type for the > stripped pdbs, so that they could live alongside the full pdbs, we > wouldn't have this issue. Unfortunately that seems not to work, I tried to use the stripped pdb-files with another extension but no success ☹ . An alternative could be to create 2 bundles when "--enable-stripped-pdbs-for-bundle" is set to yes , one with one without stripped pdbs . Best regards, Matthias > > On 2020-01-23 00:03, Baesken, Matthias wrote: > > Hi Erik, yes true sorry for answering your comments a bit late . > > > >> If a user runs jlink and includes all the jmods we ship with the JDK, the > result > >> should be essentially equivalent to the original JDK image. The way the > >> stripped pdb files are included in the bundles sort of at the last > >> second of the build here breaks this property. > > I think we should address this in a separate bug/CR . > Maybe. I realize that my proposal below is quite a big task. But on the > other hand, I don't think breaking the relationship between the jmods > and the distribution bundles is on the table really. > > Looking for example into a Linux build, I see a lot of debuginfo files > > in the > jdk image (more or less for every shared lib) . > > But when looking into the jmods of that jdk image , no debuginfo files are > in there ( I checked the java.base jmod). > > So putting the files with debug information into the jmods seems to be > something that was not done so far cross platform (or is there some build > switch for it that I did not check?) . > > Maybe to keep the jmods as small as possible . > > No, we do not put the debuginfo files in the jmods nor the bundles > because those are not intended to be shipped to customers. We are > currently overlaying them into images/jdk in the build output to make > them available for local debugging. (This is convoluted and I would very > much like to get away from this practice at some point so that there is > a 1-1 mapping between images/jdk and bundles/jdk*-bin.tar.gz.) The > stripped pdb files you are proposing are on the contrary intended for > shipping to customers (as I understand your proposal) so comparing them > with the debuginfo files is not relevant. > > Now if MS had been kind enough to define a separate file type for the > stripped pdbs, so that they could live alongside the full pdbs, we > wouldn't have this issue. The heart of the problem is that only one set > of files (either stripped or full) can be present and usable in > images/jdk at a time. We have 2 main uses for images/jdk. > > 1. Developer running and debugging locally > > 2. Serve as the source for generating the distribution bundles > > We currently have one image serving both of these purposes, which is > already creating complicated and convoluted build steps. To properly > solve this I would argue for splitting these two apart into two > different images for the two different purposes. The build procedure > would then be, first build the images for distribution, only containing > what should go into each bundle. Then create the developer jdk image by > copying files from the distribution images. On Windows, the first image > would contain the stripped pdbs and when building the second, those > would get overwritten with the full pdbs. > > Now that I figured out a working model that would solve a bunch of other > problems as well, I would love to implement it, but I doubt I will have > time in the near future. > > /Erik > > > > >> To properly implement this, care will need to be taken to juggle the two > >> sets of pdb files around, making sure each build and test use case has > >> the correct one in place where and when it's needed. Quite possibly, we > >> cannot cover all use cases with one build configuration. Developers > >> needing the full debug symbols when debugging locally would likely need > >> to disable the stripped symbols so they get the full symbols everywhere. > >> Possibly this would need to be the default for debug builds and > >> configurable for release builds. > > From my limited experience , the developers do not work with the > bundles (that would contain now after my patch the stripped pds) but with > a "normal" jdk image that is created my make all. > > > > Best regards, Matthias > > > > > > > >> This still does not address anything in my objection. > >> > >> /Erik > >> > >> On 2020-01-22 07:46, Baesken, Matthias wrote: > >>> Hello, here is an updated version : > >>> > >>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~mbaesken/webrevs/8237192.3/ > >>> > >>> this one supports a configure switch "--enable-stripped-pdbs" to > enable > >> the feature . > >>> Best regards, Matthias > >>> > >>> > >>>> -----Original Message----- > >>>> From: Baesken, Matthias > >>>> Sent: Dienstag, 21. Januar 2020 11:03 > >>>> To: 'David Holmes' <david.hol...@oracle.com>; 'build- > >>>> d...@openjdk.java.net' <build-dev@openjdk.java.net>; 'hotspot- > >>>> d...@openjdk.java.net' <hotspot-...@openjdk.java.net> > >>>> Subject: RE: RFR: 8237192: Generate stripped/public pdbs on Windows > for > >>>> jdk images > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Hi David , yes I think it makes sense to have a configure option for > >>>> this . > >>>> Not everyone would like to have a larger JDK (even it is only a bit > larger). > >>>>
