Hello Christoph,
This patch certainly looks better to me, though I agree it's a bit
hackish to have to filter and rename the stripped.pdb files twice, once
for jmods and again for bundles. I think I'm ok with it for now though.
The future improvement I would like to make would be to create two sets
of jdk images, one that contains debug symbols and demos, which we
continue to use for testing, and another which only contains exactly
what we bundle up, including the correctly named top dir. The latter
would be created first and used as input for the former. I think lots of
things would be cleaner then, especially Bundles.gmk.
But, that can wait for later. With your current proposal, my proposed
future change will apply seamlessly in regard to the stripped pdb files
and our distribution bundles.
The clash between launchers and libs is annoying, and we also have it
for java.exe and java.dll already, though the build is explicitly
handling that one somewhere else.
Now to review, there are some details I will nitpick about.
CreateJmods.gmk:
174, 185: Rule declarations should be indented like any other line
inside conditionals. But, I have a problem with these rules as the
target is the directory. This will not work well with incremental
builds. I would recommend doing a SetupCopyFiles construct instead so
you get individual rules for each file. It would look something like this:
rename-stripped-pdb = \
$(patsubst %.stripped.pdb,%.pdb,$1)
$(eval $(call SetupCopyFiles, COPY_STRIPPED_LIBS, \
SRC := $(LIBS_DIR), \
DEST := $(LIBS_DIR_STRIPPED), \
FILES := $(call FindFiles, $(LIBS_DIR)), \
NAME_MACRO := rename-stripped-pdb, \
))
DEPS += $(COPY_STRIPPED_LIBS)
For the corresponding CMD_DIR, the removal of jimage and friends can be
done with $(filter ) around The FindFiles call.
GenerateLinkOptData.gmk:
Please indent inside ifeq block. I would prefer having the TARGETS +=
inside the conditional block. Seems you also left a commented out endif
there.
NativeCompilation.gmk
919: You changed the continuation indent from 4 to 2, please revert.
/Erik
On 2020-02-12 05:26, Langer, Christoph wrote:
Hi Magnus, Erik,
I started off with Matthias’ patch and tried to address your concerns.
Especially I explored adding the stripped pdbs to the jmods as well.
Here is what I came up with:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~clanger/webrevs/8237192.0/
It’s a bit hacky in that it’ll copy support/modules_libs to
support/modules_libs_stripped and fix the pdbs to ship in there. The
same goes for modules_cmds. The problem with that approach is that
probably not all dependencies are placed correctly and also there’s a
bit more of duplication of binaries in the build directories. I think,
it could be repaired eventually by refactoring, e.g. have a
support/modules_dbgsymbols folder where the real debug symbol files
get placed and used from there.
There’s also two additional caveats, one is that jimage.pdb and
jpackage.pdb exist twice. Once for the libs and once for the launchers
with the same name. This will cause failures when jlinking. I decided
to keep the pdbs for the libs. And I also had to take care of the
classlist generation, to have the resulting classlist placed in
support/modules_libs_stripped as well.
I furthermore updated the naming of options and variables, hopefully
to your like. And I made the debug output logInfo.
I tested (on Windows), both, with --enable-public-debug-symbols and
without. Without the option, everything seems as before. With the
option enabled, the stripped debug symbols will be installed in the
bundles and also in the jmods. 😊
Please let me know what you think.
Thanks & Best regards
Christoph
*From:*Magnus Ihse Bursie <magnus.ihse.bur...@oracle.com>
*Sent:* Freitag, 7. Februar 2020 14:09
*To:* Baesken, Matthias <matthias.baes...@sap.com>; Erik Joelsson
<erik.joels...@oracle.com>; Langer, Christoph
<christoph.lan...@sap.com>; David Holmes <david.hol...@oracle.com>;
'build-dev@openjdk.java.net' <build-dev@openjdk.java.net>;
'hotspot-...@openjdk.java.net' <hotspot-...@openjdk.java.net>
*Subject:* Re: RFR: 8237192: Generate stripped/public pdbs on Windows
for jdk images
On 2020-02-07 09:50, Baesken, Matthias wrote:
Hello, here is a slightly changed new webrev :
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~mbaesken/webrevs/8237192.4/
In Bundles.gmk, this line:
$(ECHO) found stripped pdb file $$$${f}, we rename it to:
$$$${f%stripped.pdb}pdb; \
It looks almost like left-over debug output. If you want to keep it,
please rephrase to something more terse, that fits better with the
existing style of build messages. Also, it should probably be on the
LOG=info level, so add a $(LOG_INFO).
In NativeCompilation.gmk:
Why not just a simple,
ifeq ($(ENABLE_STRIPPED_PDBS), true)
$1_EXTRA_LDFLAGS +=
"-pdbstripped:$$($1_SYMBOLS_DIR)/$$($1_NOSUFFIX).stripped.pdb"
endif
?
I see no reason to duplicate code.
In jdk-options.m4:
I'm not 100% sure about the name of the new option.
--enable-stripped-pdb does not fully convey the fact that we do not
strip the *existing* pdb:s, but instead also add a new type. Maybe
--enable-bundle-stripped-pdb?
/Magnus
(adjusted $(JRE_STRIPPED_PDB_FILES) in Bundles.gmk, that was in the wrong
place ) .
I think it needs to be a separate option as it's all orthogonal to the
main debug symbols file creation.
Yes it is a separate option I agree that’s better . One has to set
--enable-stripped-pdbs=yes .
Best regards , Matthias
On 2020-02-06 04:48, Magnus Ihse Bursie wrote:
On 2020-02-06 12:36, Langer, Christoph wrote:
Hi,
let me chime in to this discussion at this point. So, first of
all, Matthias,
thanks for your work so far.
Erik, I fully understand your points and I agree that it's
probably a good
idea to refactor this whole process of creating these different types of
bundles.
Our idea is to provide functionality in the build system to add
"public" or
stripped debug files to the delivery image of the JDK. This would
provide
better information in case of crashes and would hence allow for better
supportability. That's something we'd probably want to enable in
SapMachine binary distributions.
I very much support the idea of using these stripped pdb files. It has
been a long standing issue in hotspot on Windows to not have access to
stacktraces.
So, can we get to add a configure option like the one proposed
by
Matthias into the current code base?
The option should be turned off by default. If it is switched
on, the
images/jdk folder in the build directory will have both, the
*stripped.pdb
files and the standard *.pdb files. However, having *stripped.pdb files
around should not matter in terms of functionality (for developers and
testing) as they'd not be used in the presence of the "real" pdb files
anyway.
The actual JDK bundle for delivery would then contain the *stripped.pdb
files, renamed to *.pdb. And the debug symbols bundle would have the
full
*.pdb files only. Both could then be overlaid as needed.
I think you raised two concerns.
One is that you'd rather like to refactor bundling for several
reasons. But I
guess, should you eventually get to your refactoring, it shouldn't be a
problem to take the functionality of this new option along.
The other was regarding JMODs. I believe it's correct, that
JMODs have
never carried external debug information. For platforms other than MS
Windows that's actually not a big problem because debug information can
be
internalized. And jlink has gotten several additions to set flags for
stripping
that data to the right level. I assume if jlinked images on Windows
should
ever be enabled to carry debug information, inclusion of external debug
files
would have to be added to JMODs and jlink. But that's definitely out of
scope
here.
The argument "jmods have never carried external debug information" just
doesn't apply here. Neither has the distribution bundles, for the exact
same reason. You really should not compare these new stripped pdb files
to the existing debug symbol files, they are different files with
different purposes. One is meant to be shipped to customers, the other
is not. You say you want to ship these new stripped pdb files with your
distribution so that customers have them present when they use your
distribution. If you then omit these new files from the jmods, any
customer created jlinked image will not have these new stripped pdb
files, which IMO is a very weird and unexpected behavior from a customer
point of view. Jlinking new images is an integral and promoted way of
using a JDK, so any mismatch between the original JDK distribution and
what you are able to jlink is a serious discrepancy.
So, what do you think? What speaks against adding this option
(that is off
by default)?
My main objective is that you introduce further discrepancies between
the original distribution JDK image and what's possible to generate
using jlink from that distribution JDK image. My second objective is
that the already convoluted bundles creation logic becomes even more
convoluted. I believe there is a better possible solution in the build
but it will require a lot more work to figure out.
All that said, if you still wish to continue, I will stop standing in
the way.
While Erik will need to comment on this himself, from my POV this
looks okay. The conditions are:
* This is controlled by a separate option (or perhaps even better
as a
new argument to --with-native-debug-symbols), so without this,
nothing
will change.
I think it needs to be a separate option as it's all orthogonal to the
main debug symbols file creation.
* The code need to make sure to separate stripped.pdb and normal pdb
files, when enabled.
* And there must not be a heavy penalty in added code complexity.
/Erik
/Magnus
Thanks
Christoph
-----Original Message-----
From: build-dev<build-dev-boun...@openjdk.java.net>
<mailto:build-dev-boun...@openjdk.java.net> On Behalf Of
Erik
Joelsson
Sent: Donnerstag, 23. Januar 2020 18:49
To: Baesken, Matthias<matthias.baes...@sap.com>
<mailto:matthias.baes...@sap.com>; David Holmes
<david.hol...@oracle.com> <mailto:david.hol...@oracle.com>;
'build-dev@openjdk.java.net <mailto:build-dev@openjdk.java.net>' <build-
d...@openjdk.java.net <mailto:d...@openjdk.java.net>>;
'hotspot-...@openjdk.java.net <mailto:hotspot-...@openjdk.java.net>' <hotspot-
d...@openjdk.java.net <mailto:d...@openjdk.java.net>>
Subject: Re: RFR: 8237192: Generate stripped/public pdbs on
Windows
for
jdk images
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>
<mailto:david.hol...@oracle.com>; 'build-
d...@openjdk.java.net
<mailto:d...@openjdk.java.net>'<build-dev@openjdk.java.net>
<mailto:build-dev@openjdk.java.net>; 'hotspot-
d...@openjdk.java.net
<mailto:d...@openjdk.java.net>'<hotspot-...@openjdk.java.net>
<mailto: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).
