RE: jdk10 : simplify jexec build settings
? Fixing jexec is a separate issue and not really build related.
Yes that's true, I created a separate bug for this :
https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8175000
Regards, Matthias
From: Erik Joelsson [mailto:erik.joels...@oracle.com]
Sent: Dienstag, 14. Februar 2017 17:57
To: Baesken, Matthias <matthias.baes...@sap.com>; build-...@openjdk.java.net;
core-libs-dev@openjdk.java.net
Cc: Langer, Christoph <christoph.lan...@sap.com>; Simonis, Volker
<volker.simo...@sap.com>
Subject: Re: jdk10 : simplify jexec build settings
Hello,
Looks good to me.
Fixing jexec is a separate issue and not really build related.
/Erik
On 2017-02-14 17:27, Baesken, Matthias wrote:
Hello, here is the webrev :
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~mbaesken/webrevs/8174242/<http://cr.openjdk.java.net/%7Embaesken/webrevs/8174242/>
bug :
https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8174242
As discussed , I deleted the macosx jexec.c.
Btw. I found out that jexec does not work (fully?) in jdk8 / 9 ( seems
this has to do with the change 8156478: 3 Buffer overrun defect groups in
jexec.c )
Executing a helloworld.jar with jexec leads to
"invalid file (bad magic number): Exec format error" .
Should I open another bug for this ?
Best regards, Matthias
From: Baesken, Matthias
Sent: Freitag, 10. Februar 2017 13:19
To: 'Erik Joelsson'
<erik.joels...@oracle.com><mailto:erik.joels...@oracle.com>;
build-...@openjdk.java.net<mailto:build-...@openjdk.java.net>;
core-libs-dev@openjdk.java.net<mailto:core-libs-dev@openjdk.java.net>
Cc: Langer, Christoph
<christoph.lan...@sap.com><mailto:christoph.lan...@sap.com>
Subject: RE: jdk10 : simplify jexec build settings
Hi Eric, thanks for the comment, I think I'll remove the macosx source file .
Btw. is there already some test for jexec (a "fast grep" through the jdk
tests did not show me much) ?
Best regards, Matthias
From: Erik Joelsson [mailto:erik.joels...@oracle.com]
Sent: Freitag, 10. Februar 2017 09:49
To: Baesken, Matthias
<matthias.baes...@sap.com<mailto:matthias.baes...@sap.com>>;
build-...@openjdk.java.net<mailto:build-...@openjdk.java.net>;
core-libs-dev@openjdk.java.net<mailto:core-libs-dev@openjdk.java.net>
Cc: Langer, Christoph
<christoph.lan...@sap.com<mailto:christoph.lan...@sap.com>>
Subject: Re: jdk10 : simplify jexec build settings
Since the file has never been built, I would say remove the macosx source file.
You can point directly to the unix source dir if you prefer too. No need to
have dead logic for macosx in the makefile.
/Erik
On 2017-02-09 15:27, Baesken, Matthias wrote:
I compared the jexec.c versions for macosx and unix
( jdk/src/java.base/macosx/native/launcher/jexec.cand
jdk/src/java.base/unix/native/launcher/jexec.c )
And to me it looks like the unix version could be used for macosx too (just
in case there is a need to reenable the build of jexec.c for macosx one day
again).
Comments / suggestions ?
Best regards, Matthias
From: Baesken, Matthias
Sent: Donnerstag, 9. Februar 2017 14:10
To: 'Erik Joelsson'
<erik.joels...@oracle.com><mailto:erik.joels...@oracle.com>;
build-...@openjdk.java.net<mailto:build-...@openjdk.java.net>;
'core-libs-dev@openjdk.java.net<mailto:core-libs-dev@openjdk.java.net>'
<core-libs-dev@openjdk.java.net><mailto:core-libs-dev@openjdk.java.net>
Cc: Langer, Christoph
<christoph.lan...@sap.com><mailto:christoph.lan...@sap.com>
Subject: RE: jdk10 : simplify jexec build settings
Hello Erik, thanks for the comments .
>>Then there is handling for macosx left , but the build is not enabled for
>>macosx, does it still make sense to include the macosx handling (there is
>>even a separate jexec.c for macosx) :
>
>This is indeed weird. I don't think we ever built jexec for macosx so the
>source file should likely be removed. That is however a question for core-libs
>I think.
I include core-libs-dev , can someone comment on jexec on macosx ?
Currently jexec.c is not compiled for macosx (jdk9/10), see
jdk/make/launcher/Launcher-java.base.gmk .
It is just compiled on linux .
So I wonder - is it ok to remove the macosx handling in the mentioned
makefile jdk/make/launcher/Launcher-java.base.gmk for jexec ?
>This will automatically look in all the directories where source files are
>supposed to be and pick the most specific one if there are any with the same
>name.
>Since the share launcher dir contains more src files, you will need to leave
>the INCLUDE_FILES := jexec.c this time.
>From what I observe in the linux build log, just jexec.c is compiled into
>jexec.o and then this single object is used to create the executable
>("program") jexec.
Other src files are not used in the compilation of jexec, so
Re: jdk10 : simplify jexec build settings
Hello,
Looks good to me.
Fixing jexec is a separate issue and not really build related.
/Erik
On 2017-02-14 17:27, Baesken, Matthias wrote:
Hello, here is the webrev :
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~mbaesken/webrevs/8174242/
<http://cr.openjdk.java.net/%7Embaesken/webrevs/8174242/>
bug :
https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8174242
As discussed , I deleted the macosx jexec.c.
Btw. I found out that jexec does not work (fully?) in jdk8 / 9
( seems this has to do with the change 8156478: 3 Buffer overrun
defect groups in jexec.c )
Executing a helloworld.jar with jexec leads to
“invalid file (bad magic number): Exec format error” .
Should I open another bug for this ?
Best regards, Matthias
*From:*Baesken, Matthias
*Sent:* Freitag, 10. Februar 2017 13:19
*To:* 'Erik Joelsson' <erik.joels...@oracle.com>;
build-...@openjdk.java.net; core-libs-dev@openjdk.java.net
*Cc:* Langer, Christoph <christoph.lan...@sap.com>
*Subject:* RE: jdk10 : simplify jexec build settings
Hi Eric, thanks for the comment, I think I’ll remove the macosx source
file .
Btw. is there already some test for jexec (a “fast grep” through the
jdk tests did not show me much) ?
Best regards, Matthias
*From:*Erik Joelsson [mailto:erik.joels...@oracle.com]
*Sent:* Freitag, 10. Februar 2017 09:49
*To:* Baesken, Matthias <matthias.baes...@sap.com
<mailto:matthias.baes...@sap.com>>; build-...@openjdk.java.net
<mailto:build-...@openjdk.java.net>; core-libs-dev@openjdk.java.net
<mailto:core-libs-dev@openjdk.java.net>
*Cc:* Langer, Christoph <christoph.lan...@sap.com
<mailto:christoph.lan...@sap.com>>
*Subject:* Re: jdk10 : simplify jexec build settings
Since the file has never been built, I would say remove the macosx
source file. You can point directly to the unix source dir if you
prefer too. No need to have dead logic for macosx in the makefile.
/Erik
On 2017-02-09 15:27, Baesken, Matthias wrote:
I compared the jexec.c versions for macosx and unix
( jdk/src/java.base/macosx/native/launcher/jexec.cand
jdk/src/java.base/unix/native/launcher/jexec.c )
And to me it looks like the unix version could be used for
macosx too (just in case there is a need to reenable the build
of jexec.c for macosx one day again).
Comments / suggestions ?
Best regards, Matthias
*From:*Baesken, Matthias
*Sent:* Donnerstag, 9. Februar 2017 14:10
*To:* 'Erik Joelsson' <erik.joels...@oracle.com>
<mailto:erik.joels...@oracle.com>; build-...@openjdk.java.net
<mailto:build-...@openjdk.java.net>;
'core-libs-dev@openjdk.java.net
<mailto:core-libs-dev@openjdk.java.net>'
<core-libs-dev@openjdk.java.net>
<mailto:core-libs-dev@openjdk.java.net>
*Cc:* Langer, Christoph <christoph.lan...@sap.com>
<mailto:christoph.lan...@sap.com>
*Subject:* RE: jdk10 : simplify jexec build settings
Hello Erik, thanks for the comments .
>>Then there is handling for macosx left , but the build is not enabled
for macosx, does it still make sense to include the macosx
handling (there is even a separate jexec.c for macosx) :
>
>This is indeed weird. I don't think we ever built jexec for macosx so the
source file should likely
be removed. That is however a question for core-libs I think.
I include core-libs-dev , can someone comment on jexec on macosx ?
Currently jexec.c is not compiled for macosx (jdk9/10), see
jdk/make/launcher/Launcher-java.base.gmk .
It is just compiled on linux .
So I wonder - is it ok to remove the macosx handling in the
mentioned makefile jdk/make/launcher/Launcher-java.base.gmk for
jexec ?
>This will automatically look in all the directories where source files are
supposed to be and pick
the most specific one if there are any with the same name.
>Since the share launcher dir contains more src files, you will need to
leave the INCLUDE_FILES
:= jexec.c this time.
From what I observe in the linux build log, just jexec.c is
compiled into jexec.o and then this single object is used to
create the executable (“program”) jexec.
Other src files are not used in the compilation of jexec, so just
using $(JDK_TOPDIR)/src/$(MODULE)/unix/native/launcher would be
fine (as long as macosx can be dropped).
Best regards, Matthias
*From:*Erik Joelsson [mailto:erik.joels...@oracle.com]
*Sent:* Donnerstag, 9. Februar 2017 13:42
*To:* Baesken, Matthias <matthias.baes...@sap.com
<mailto:matthias.baes...@sap.com>>; build-...@openjdk.java.net
<mailto:build-...@openjdk.java.net>
*Cc:* Langer, Christoph <christoph.lan...@sap.com
<mailto:christoph.lan...@sap.com>>
*Subject:* Re: jdk10 : simplify jexec build settings
H
RE: jdk10 : simplify jexec build settings
Hello, here is the webrev :
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~mbaesken/webrevs/8174242/
bug :
https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8174242
As discussed , I deleted the macosx jexec.c.
Btw. I found out that jexec does not work (fully?) in jdk8 / 9 ( seems
this has to do with the change 8156478: 3 Buffer overrun defect groups in
jexec.c )
Executing a helloworld.jar with jexec leads to
"invalid file (bad magic number): Exec format error" .
Should I open another bug for this ?
Best regards, Matthias
From: Baesken, Matthias
Sent: Freitag, 10. Februar 2017 13:19
To: 'Erik Joelsson' <erik.joels...@oracle.com>; build-...@openjdk.java.net;
core-libs-dev@openjdk.java.net
Cc: Langer, Christoph <christoph.lan...@sap.com>
Subject: RE: jdk10 : simplify jexec build settings
Hi Eric, thanks for the comment, I think I'll remove the macosx source file .
Btw. is there already some test for jexec (a "fast grep" through the jdk
tests did not show me much) ?
Best regards, Matthias
From: Erik Joelsson [mailto:erik.joels...@oracle.com]
Sent: Freitag, 10. Februar 2017 09:49
To: Baesken, Matthias
<matthias.baes...@sap.com<mailto:matthias.baes...@sap.com>>;
build-...@openjdk.java.net<mailto:build-...@openjdk.java.net>;
core-libs-dev@openjdk.java.net<mailto:core-libs-dev@openjdk.java.net>
Cc: Langer, Christoph
<christoph.lan...@sap.com<mailto:christoph.lan...@sap.com>>
Subject: Re: jdk10 : simplify jexec build settings
Since the file has never been built, I would say remove the macosx source file.
You can point directly to the unix source dir if you prefer too. No need to
have dead logic for macosx in the makefile.
/Erik
On 2017-02-09 15:27, Baesken, Matthias wrote:
I compared the jexec.c versions for macosx and unix
( jdk/src/java.base/macosx/native/launcher/jexec.cand
jdk/src/java.base/unix/native/launcher/jexec.c )
And to me it looks like the unix version could be used for macosx too (just
in case there is a need to reenable the build of jexec.c for macosx one day
again).
Comments / suggestions ?
Best regards, Matthias
From: Baesken, Matthias
Sent: Donnerstag, 9. Februar 2017 14:10
To: 'Erik Joelsson'
<erik.joels...@oracle.com><mailto:erik.joels...@oracle.com>;
build-...@openjdk.java.net<mailto:build-...@openjdk.java.net>;
'core-libs-dev@openjdk.java.net<mailto:core-libs-dev@openjdk.java.net>'
<core-libs-dev@openjdk.java.net><mailto:core-libs-dev@openjdk.java.net>
Cc: Langer, Christoph
<christoph.lan...@sap.com><mailto:christoph.lan...@sap.com>
Subject: RE: jdk10 : simplify jexec build settings
Hello Erik, thanks for the comments .
>>Then there is handling for macosx left , but the build is not enabled for
>>macosx, does it still make sense to include the macosx handling (there is
>>even a separate jexec.c for macosx) :
>
>This is indeed weird. I don't think we ever built jexec for macosx so the
>source file should likely be removed. That is however a question for core-libs
>I think.
I include core-libs-dev , can someone comment on jexec on macosx ?
Currently jexec.c is not compiled for macosx (jdk9/10), see
jdk/make/launcher/Launcher-java.base.gmk .
It is just compiled on linux .
So I wonder - is it ok to remove the macosx handling in the mentioned
makefile jdk/make/launcher/Launcher-java.base.gmk for jexec ?
>This will automatically look in all the directories where source files are
>supposed to be and pick the most specific one if there are any with the same
>name.
>Since the share launcher dir contains more src files, you will need to leave
>the INCLUDE_FILES := jexec.c this time.
>From what I observe in the linux build log, just jexec.c is compiled into
>jexec.o and then this single object is used to create the executable
>("program") jexec.
Other src files are not used in the compilation of jexec, so just using
$(JDK_TOPDIR)/src/$(MODULE)/unix/native/launcher would be fine (as long as
macosx can be dropped).
Best regards, Matthias
From: Erik Joelsson [mailto:erik.joels...@oracle.com]
Sent: Donnerstag, 9. Februar 2017 13:42
To: Baesken, Matthias
<matthias.baes...@sap.com<mailto:matthias.baes...@sap.com>>;
build-...@openjdk.java.net<mailto:build-...@openjdk.java.net>
Cc: Langer, Christoph
<christoph.lan...@sap.com<mailto:christoph.lan...@sap.com>>
Subject: Re: jdk10 : simplify jexec build settings
Hello,
On 2017-02-09 12:36, Baesken, Matthias wrote:
Hello , while adjusting the jspawnhelper build settings with 8174086, it has
been noticed that the jexec build settings need some simplification as well.
The bug
https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8174242
has been created for this.
When looking into it, I had some questions :
http://hg.openjdk.java.ne
RE: jdk10 : simplify jexec build settings
Hello Erik, thanks for the comments .
>>Then there is handling for macosx left , but the build is not enabled for
>>macosx, does it still make sense to include the macosx handling (there is
>>even a separate jexec.c for macosx) :
>
>This is indeed weird. I don't think we ever built jexec for macosx so the
>source file should likely be removed. That is however a question for core-libs
>I think.
I include core-libs-dev , can someone comment on jexec on macosx ?
Currently jexec.c is not compiled for macosx (jdk9/10), see
jdk/make/launcher/Launcher-java.base.gmk .
It is just compiled on linux .
So I wonder - is it ok to remove the macosx handling in the mentioned
makefile jdk/make/launcher/Launcher-java.base.gmk for jexec ?
>This will automatically look in all the directories where source files are
>supposed to be and pick the most specific one if there are any with the same
>name.
>Since the share launcher dir contains more src files, you will need to leave
>the INCLUDE_FILES := jexec.c this time.
>From what I observe in the linux build log, just jexec.c is compiled into
>jexec.o and then this single object is used to create the executable
>("program") jexec.
Other src files are not used in the compilation of jexec, so just using
$(JDK_TOPDIR)/src/$(MODULE)/unix/native/launcher would be fine (as long as
macosx can be dropped).
Best regards, Matthias
From: Erik Joelsson [mailto:erik.joels...@oracle.com]
Sent: Donnerstag, 9. Februar 2017 13:42
To: Baesken, Matthias <matthias.baes...@sap.com>; build-...@openjdk.java.net
Cc: Langer, Christoph <christoph.lan...@sap.com>
Subject: Re: jdk10 : simplify jexec build settings
Hello,
On 2017-02-09 12:36, Baesken, Matthias wrote:
Hello , while adjusting the jspawnhelper build settings with 8174086, it has
been noticed that the jexec build settings need some simplification as well.
The bug
https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8174242
has been created for this.
When looking into it, I had some questions :
http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk10/jdk10/jdk/file/ae7afa9abe67/make/launcher/Launcher-java.base.gmk
The makefile (make/launcher/Launcher-java.base.gmk ) handles Solaris 32bit,
but is this really supported in jdk 9 or 10 ( I think it was removed in 9
and only 64bit Solaris support remains ) ?
We do not support 32bit Solaris. The issue with jexec for Solaris was raised a
while back and the conclusion was to scrap support, so no need to build it for
Solaris at all.
ifeq ($(OPENJDK_TARGET_OS), solaris)
ifeq ($(OPENJDK_TARGET_CPU_BITS), 32)
BUILD_JEXEC := 1
endif
endif
ifeq ($(OPENJDK_TARGET_OS), linux)
BUILD_JEXEC := 1
endif # OPENJDK_TARGET_OS
#
# jdk/make/java/jexec/Makefile
#
ifeq ($(BUILD_JEXEC), 1)
Then there is handling for macosx left , but the build is not enabled for
macosx, does it still make sense to include the macosx handling (there is even
a separate jexec.c for macosx) :
This is indeed weird. I don't think we ever built jexec for macosx so the
source file should likely be removed. That is however a question for core-libs
I think.
The makefile logic shouldn't need to be that specific though. Our modern
pattern for this is something like this:
SRC := $(call uniq, $(wildcard \
$(JDK_TOPDIR)/src/$(MODULE)/$(OPENJDK_TARGET_OS)/native/launcher \
$(JDK_TOPDIR)/src/$(MODULE)/$(OPENJDK_TARGET_OS_TYPE)/native/launcher \
$(JDK_TOPDIR)/src/$(MODULE)/share/native/launcher))
This will automatically look in all the directories where source files are
supposed to be and pick the most specific one if there are any with the same
name. Since the share launcher dir contains more src files, you will need to
leave the INCLUDE_FILES := jexec.c this time.
For libraries, we have abstracted this construct in the macro FindSrcDirForLib
(LibCommon.gmk) but we haven't done the same for launchers yet.
/Erik
ifeq ($(OPENJDK_TARGET_OS), windows)
else ifeq ($(OPENJDK_TARGET_OS), macosx)
BUILD_JEXEC_SRC := $(JDK_TOPDIR)/src/java.base/macosx/native/launcher
else
BUILD_JEXEC_SRC := $(JDK_TOPDIR)/src/java.base/unix/native/launcher
endif
Should I remove the solaris 32bit / macosx handling for jexec from
make/launcher/Launcher-java.base.gmk ?
Regards, Matthias
RE: jdk10 : simplify jexec build settings
I compared the jexec.c versions for macosx and unix
( jdk/src/java.base/macosx/native/launcher/jexec.cand
jdk/src/java.base/unix/native/launcher/jexec.c )
And to me it looks like the unix version could be used for macosx too (just
in case there is a need to reenable the build of jexec.c for macosx one day
again).
Comments / suggestions ?
Best regards, Matthias
From: Baesken, Matthias
Sent: Donnerstag, 9. Februar 2017 14:10
To: 'Erik Joelsson' <erik.joels...@oracle.com>; build-...@openjdk.java.net;
'core-libs-dev@openjdk.java.net' <core-libs-dev@openjdk.java.net>
Cc: Langer, Christoph <christoph.lan...@sap.com>
Subject: RE: jdk10 : simplify jexec build settings
Hello Erik, thanks for the comments .
>>Then there is handling for macosx left , but the build is not enabled for
>>macosx, does it still make sense to include the macosx handling (there is
>>even a separate jexec.c for macosx) :
>
>This is indeed weird. I don't think we ever built jexec for macosx so the
>source file should likely be removed. That is however a question for core-libs
>I think.
I include core-libs-dev , can someone comment on jexec on macosx ?
Currently jexec.c is not compiled for macosx (jdk9/10), see
jdk/make/launcher/Launcher-java.base.gmk .
It is just compiled on linux .
So I wonder - is it ok to remove the macosx handling in the mentioned
makefile jdk/make/launcher/Launcher-java.base.gmk for jexec ?
>This will automatically look in all the directories where source files are
>supposed to be and pick the most specific one if there are any with the same
>name.
>Since the share launcher dir contains more src files, you will need to leave
>the INCLUDE_FILES := jexec.c this time.
>From what I observe in the linux build log, just jexec.c is compiled into
>jexec.o and then this single object is used to create the executable
>("program") jexec.
Other src files are not used in the compilation of jexec, so just using
$(JDK_TOPDIR)/src/$(MODULE)/unix/native/launcher would be fine (as long as
macosx can be dropped).
Best regards, Matthias
From: Erik Joelsson [mailto:erik.joels...@oracle.com]
Sent: Donnerstag, 9. Februar 2017 13:42
To: Baesken, Matthias
<matthias.baes...@sap.com<mailto:matthias.baes...@sap.com>>;
build-...@openjdk.java.net<mailto:build-...@openjdk.java.net>
Cc: Langer, Christoph
<christoph.lan...@sap.com<mailto:christoph.lan...@sap.com>>
Subject: Re: jdk10 : simplify jexec build settings
Hello,
On 2017-02-09 12:36, Baesken, Matthias wrote:
Hello , while adjusting the jspawnhelper build settings with 8174086, it has
been noticed that the jexec build settings need some simplification as well.
The bug
https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8174242
has been created for this.
When looking into it, I had some questions :
http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk10/jdk10/jdk/file/ae7afa9abe67/make/launcher/Launcher-java.base.gmk
The makefile (make/launcher/Launcher-java.base.gmk ) handles Solaris 32bit,
but is this really supported in jdk 9 or 10 ( I think it was removed in 9
and only 64bit Solaris support remains ) ?
We do not support 32bit Solaris. The issue with jexec for Solaris was raised a
while back and the conclusion was to scrap support, so no need to build it for
Solaris at all.
ifeq ($(OPENJDK_TARGET_OS), solaris)
ifeq ($(OPENJDK_TARGET_CPU_BITS), 32)
BUILD_JEXEC := 1
endif
endif
ifeq ($(OPENJDK_TARGET_OS), linux)
BUILD_JEXEC := 1
endif # OPENJDK_TARGET_OS
#
# jdk/make/java/jexec/Makefile
#
ifeq ($(BUILD_JEXEC), 1)
Then there is handling for macosx left , but the build is not enabled for
macosx, does it still make sense to include the macosx handling (there is even
a separate jexec.c for macosx) :
This is indeed weird. I don't think we ever built jexec for macosx so the
source file should likely be removed. That is however a question for core-libs
I think.
The makefile logic shouldn't need to be that specific though. Our modern
pattern for this is something like this:
SRC := $(call uniq, $(wildcard \
$(JDK_TOPDIR)/src/$(MODULE)/$(OPENJDK_TARGET_OS)/native/launcher \
$(JDK_TOPDIR)/src/$(MODULE)/$(OPENJDK_TARGET_OS_TYPE)/native/launcher \
$(JDK_TOPDIR)/src/$(MODULE)/share/native/launcher))
This will automatically look in all the directories where source files are
supposed to be and pick the most specific one if there are any with the same
name. Since the share launcher dir contains more src files, you will need to
leave the INCLUDE_FILES := jexec.c this time.
For libraries, we have abstracted this construct in the macro FindSrcDirForLib
(LibCommon.gmk) but we haven't done the same for launchers yet.
/Erik
ifeq ($(OPENJDK_TARGET_OS), windows)
else ifeq ($(OPENJDK_TARGET_OS), macosx)
BUILD_JEXEC_SRC := $(JDK_TOPDIR)/src/java.base/macosx/native/launcher
else
BUILD_JE
RE: jdk10 : simplify jexec build settings
Hi Eric, thanks for the comment, I think I'll remove the macosx source file .
Btw. is there already some test for jexec (a "fast grep" through the jdk
tests did not show me much) ?
Best regards, Matthias
From: Erik Joelsson [mailto:erik.joels...@oracle.com]
Sent: Freitag, 10. Februar 2017 09:49
To: Baesken, Matthias <matthias.baes...@sap.com>; build-...@openjdk.java.net;
core-libs-dev@openjdk.java.net
Cc: Langer, Christoph <christoph.lan...@sap.com>
Subject: Re: jdk10 : simplify jexec build settings
Since the file has never been built, I would say remove the macosx source file.
You can point directly to the unix source dir if you prefer too. No need to
have dead logic for macosx in the makefile.
/Erik
On 2017-02-09 15:27, Baesken, Matthias wrote:
I compared the jexec.c versions for macosx and unix
( jdk/src/java.base/macosx/native/launcher/jexec.cand
jdk/src/java.base/unix/native/launcher/jexec.c )
And to me it looks like the unix version could be used for macosx too (just
in case there is a need to reenable the build of jexec.c for macosx one day
again).
Comments / suggestions ?
Best regards, Matthias
From: Baesken, Matthias
Sent: Donnerstag, 9. Februar 2017 14:10
To: 'Erik Joelsson'
<erik.joels...@oracle.com><mailto:erik.joels...@oracle.com>;
build-...@openjdk.java.net<mailto:build-...@openjdk.java.net>;
'core-libs-dev@openjdk.java.net<mailto:core-libs-dev@openjdk.java.net>'
<core-libs-dev@openjdk.java.net><mailto:core-libs-dev@openjdk.java.net>
Cc: Langer, Christoph
<christoph.lan...@sap.com><mailto:christoph.lan...@sap.com>
Subject: RE: jdk10 : simplify jexec build settings
Hello Erik, thanks for the comments .
>>Then there is handling for macosx left , but the build is not enabled for
>>macosx, does it still make sense to include the macosx handling (there is
>>even a separate jexec.c for macosx) :
>
>This is indeed weird. I don't think we ever built jexec for macosx so the
>source file should likely be removed. That is however a question for core-libs
>I think.
I include core-libs-dev , can someone comment on jexec on macosx ?
Currently jexec.c is not compiled for macosx (jdk9/10), see
jdk/make/launcher/Launcher-java.base.gmk .
It is just compiled on linux .
So I wonder - is it ok to remove the macosx handling in the mentioned
makefile jdk/make/launcher/Launcher-java.base.gmk for jexec ?
>This will automatically look in all the directories where source files are
>supposed to be and pick the most specific one if there are any with the same
>name.
>Since the share launcher dir contains more src files, you will need to leave
>the INCLUDE_FILES := jexec.c this time.
>From what I observe in the linux build log, just jexec.c is compiled into
>jexec.o and then this single object is used to create the executable
>("program") jexec.
Other src files are not used in the compilation of jexec, so just using
$(JDK_TOPDIR)/src/$(MODULE)/unix/native/launcher would be fine (as long as
macosx can be dropped).
Best regards, Matthias
From: Erik Joelsson [mailto:erik.joels...@oracle.com]
Sent: Donnerstag, 9. Februar 2017 13:42
To: Baesken, Matthias
<matthias.baes...@sap.com<mailto:matthias.baes...@sap.com>>;
build-...@openjdk.java.net<mailto:build-...@openjdk.java.net>
Cc: Langer, Christoph
<christoph.lan...@sap.com<mailto:christoph.lan...@sap.com>>
Subject: Re: jdk10 : simplify jexec build settings
Hello,
On 2017-02-09 12:36, Baesken, Matthias wrote:
Hello , while adjusting the jspawnhelper build settings with 8174086, it has
been noticed that the jexec build settings need some simplification as well.
The bug
https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8174242
has been created for this.
When looking into it, I had some questions :
http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk10/jdk10/jdk/file/ae7afa9abe67/make/launcher/Launcher-java.base.gmk
The makefile (make/launcher/Launcher-java.base.gmk ) handles Solaris 32bit,
but is this really supported in jdk 9 or 10 ( I think it was removed in 9
and only 64bit Solaris support remains ) ?
We do not support 32bit Solaris. The issue with jexec for Solaris was raised a
while back and the conclusion was to scrap support, so no need to build it for
Solaris at all.
ifeq ($(OPENJDK_TARGET_OS), solaris)
ifeq ($(OPENJDK_TARGET_CPU_BITS), 32)
BUILD_JEXEC := 1
endif
endif
ifeq ($(OPENJDK_TARGET_OS), linux)
BUILD_JEXEC := 1
endif # OPENJDK_TARGET_OS
#
# jdk/make/java/jexec/Makefile
#
ifeq ($(BUILD_JEXEC), 1)
Then there is handling for macosx left , but the build is not enabled for
macosx, does it still make sense to include the macosx handling (there is even
a separate jexec.c for macosx) :
This is indeed weird. I don't think we ever built jexec for macosx so the
source file should likely be removed. That is
Re: jdk10 : simplify jexec build settings
Since the file has never been built, I would say remove the macosx source file. You can point directly to the unix source dir if you prefer too. No need to have dead logic for macosx in the makefile. /Erik On 2017-02-09 15:27, Baesken, Matthias wrote: I compared the jexec.c versions for macosx and unix ( jdk/src/java.base/macosx/native/launcher/jexec.cand jdk/src/java.base/unix/native/launcher/jexec.c ) And to me it looks like the unix version could be used for macosx too (just in case there is a need to reenable the build of jexec.c for macosx one day again). Comments / suggestions ? Best regards, Matthias *From:*Baesken, Matthias *Sent:* Donnerstag, 9. Februar 2017 14:10 *To:* 'Erik Joelsson' <erik.joels...@oracle.com>; build-...@openjdk.java.net; 'core-libs-dev@openjdk.java.net' <core-libs-dev@openjdk.java.net> *Cc:* Langer, Christoph <christoph.lan...@sap.com> *Subject:* RE: jdk10 : simplify jexec build settings Hello Erik, thanks for the comments . >>Then there is handling for macosx left , but the build is not enabled for macosx, does it still make sense to include the macosx handling (there is even a separate jexec.c for macosx) : > >This is indeed weird. I don't think we ever built jexec for macosx so the source file should likely be removed. That is however a question for core-libs I think. I include core-libs-dev , can someone comment on jexec on macosx ? Currently jexec.c is not compiled for macosx (jdk9/10), see jdk/make/launcher/Launcher-java.base.gmk . It is just compiled on linux . So I wonder - is it ok to remove the macosx handling in the mentioned makefile jdk/make/launcher/Launcher-java.base.gmk for jexec ? >This will automatically look in all the directories where source files are supposed to be and pick the most specific one if there are any with the same name. >Since the share launcher dir contains more src files, you will need to leave the INCLUDE_FILES := jexec.c this time. From what I observe in the linux build log, just jexec.c is compiled into jexec.o and then this single object is used to create the executable (“program”) jexec. Other src files are not used in the compilation of jexec, so just using $(JDK_TOPDIR)/src/$(MODULE)/unix/native/launcher would be fine (as long as macosx can be dropped). Best regards, Matthias *From:*Erik Joelsson [mailto:erik.joels...@oracle.com] *Sent:* Donnerstag, 9. Februar 2017 13:42 *To:* Baesken, Matthias <matthias.baes...@sap.com <mailto:matthias.baes...@sap.com>>; build-...@openjdk.java.net <mailto:build-...@openjdk.java.net> *Cc:* Langer, Christoph <christoph.lan...@sap.com <mailto:christoph.lan...@sap.com>> *Subject:* Re: jdk10 : simplify jexec build settings Hello, On 2017-02-09 12:36, Baesken, Matthias wrote: Hello , while adjusting the jspawnhelper build settings with 8174086, it has been noticed that the jexec build settings need some simplification as well. The bug https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8174242 has been created for this. When looking into it, I had some questions : http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk10/jdk10/jdk/file/ae7afa9abe67/make/launcher/Launcher-java.base.gmk The makefile (make/launcher/Launcher-java.base.gmk ) handles Solaris 32bit, but is this really supported in jdk 9 or 10 ( I think it was removed in 9 and only 64bit Solaris support remains ) ? We do not support 32bit Solaris. The issue with jexec for Solaris was raised a while back and the conclusion was to scrap support, so no need to build it for Solaris at all. ifeq ($(OPENJDK_TARGET_OS), solaris) ifeq ($(OPENJDK_TARGET_CPU_BITS), 32) BUILD_JEXEC := 1 endif endif ifeq ($(OPENJDK_TARGET_OS), linux) BUILD_JEXEC := 1 endif # OPENJDK_TARGET_OS # # jdk/make/java/jexec/Makefile # ifeq ($(BUILD_JEXEC), 1) Then there is handling for macosx left , but the build is not enabled for macosx, does it still make sense to include the macosx handling (there is even a separate jexec.c for macosx) : This is indeed weird. I don't think we ever built jexec for macosx so the source file should likely be removed. That is however a question for core-libs I think. The makefile logic shouldn't need to be that specific though. Our modern pattern for this is something like this: SRC := $(call uniq, $(wildcard \ $(JDK_TOPDIR)/src/$(MODULE)/$(OPENJDK_TARGET_OS)/native/launcher \ $(JDK_TOPDIR)/src/$(MODULE)/$(OPENJDK_TARGET_OS_TYPE)/native/launcher \ $(JDK_TOPDIR)/src/$(MODULE)/share/native/launcher)) This will automatically look in all the directories where source files are supposed to be and pick the most specific one if there are any with the same name. Since the share launcher dir contains more src files, you will need to leave the INCLUDE_FILES := jexec.c this tim
