Re: Is the "skip boot cycle" trick still needed?

2012-09-11 Thread Kelly O'Hair
On Sep 10, 2012, at 9:24 AM, Jonathan Gibbons wrote: > On 09/11/2012 07:45 AM, Magnus Ihse Bursie wrote: >> On 2012-09-11 01:00, Jonathan Gibbons wrote: >>> Can we have a makefile target that invokes your script? E.g. make >>> full-build. >>> >>> It is easier to document the list of public ta

Re: Is the "skip boot cycle" trick still needed?

2012-09-11 Thread Kelly O'Hair
I have to agree with Jonathan here. I don't think a boot cycle build should be a configure option. -kto On Sep 10, 2012, at 9:04 AM, Jonathan Gibbons wrote: > That would depend on the semantics of --enable-boot-cycle. > > Building with a boot cycle should not be a configuration option. The abi

Re: Is the "skip boot cycle" trick still needed?

2012-09-11 Thread Jonathan Gibbons
On 09/11/2012 07:45 AM, Magnus Ihse Bursie wrote: On 2012-09-11 01:00, Jonathan Gibbons wrote: Can we have a makefile target that invokes your script? E.g. make full-build. It is easier to document the list of public targets supported by the Makefiles than to describe a set of assorted extr

Re: Is the "skip boot cycle" trick still needed?

2012-09-11 Thread Jonathan Gibbons
Dmitry, I agree on the desire to have a good set of smoke tests, but there should be room in the world for both smoke tests and a full boot cycle build. We do not have to restrict ourselves to one or the other. -- Jon On 09/11/2012 02:41 AM, Dmitry Samersoff wrote: Jonathan, Personally, I w

Re: Is the "skip boot cycle" trick still needed?

2012-09-11 Thread Jonathan Gibbons
That would depend on the semantics of --enable-boot-cycle. Building with a boot cycle should not be a configuration option. The ability to do a boot cycle should (IMO) always be enabled. The choice of whether to build with a boot cycle should be made by the user at the time "make" is invoked,

Re: Is the "skip boot cycle" trick still needed?

2012-09-11 Thread Magnus Ihse Bursie
On 2012-09-11 01:00, Jonathan Gibbons wrote: Can we have a makefile target that invokes your script? E.g. make full-build. It is easier to document the list of public targets supported by the Makefiles than to describe a set of assorted extra scripts. And, it would fit more uniformly into t

Re: Is the "skip boot cycle" trick still needed?

2012-09-11 Thread Dmitry Samersoff
Jonathan, Personally, I would prefer to have a separate set of tests - "smoke tests" and appropriate make target. e.g. make test instead of BOOT_CYCLE logic. Test suite should have known coverage and predictable effects, otherwise it makes an illusion of testing. -Dmitry On 2012-09-10 19:09, J

Re: Is the "skip boot cycle" trick still needed?

2012-09-11 Thread Alan Bateman
On 10/09/2012 20:42, Andrew Hughes wrote: : Yes, jtreg tests would catch this too, but they take more time& configuration than a simple second build, plus there are tests that are known to fail and areas that aren't tested. A topic for another thread but the goal is that all tests should pass

Re: Is the "skip boot cycle" trick still needed?

2012-09-10 Thread Fredrik Öhrström
Sure, that would be trivial. But is it a good design? You would need some way to differentiate configure arguments and make arguments on the command line. A nicer way would be to have --enable-boot-cycle on the configure script. The option was there for quite some time, in anticipation of this f

Re: Is the "skip boot cycle" trick still needed?

2012-09-10 Thread Jonathan Gibbons
Can we have a makefile target that invokes your script? E.g. make full-build. It is easier to document the list of public targets supported by the Makefiles than to describe a set of assorted extra scripts. And, it would fit more uniformly into the JPRT infrastructure. -- Jon On 09/10/201

Re: Is the "skip boot cycle" trick still needed?

2012-09-10 Thread Fredrik Öhrström
You are right Jon, it is rather easy to do. I just pushed boot_cycle.sh into build-infra. You can do: sh common/bin/boot_cycle.sh and it will create boot_cycle_1 in build, and build the complete product there (including images) then it will create boot_cycle_2 and configure it to use boot_cycl

Re: Is the "skip boot cycle" trick still needed?

2012-09-10 Thread Kumar Srinivasan
also it is being used by the jdk tl/etc integrator to build PIT bundles. I agree with the others it has been very useful in the past. Kumar I agree with Jon. SKIP_BOOT_CYCLE=false has been a useful and handy test case (building JDK with the newly built JDK) to catch issues early on.Such

Re: Is the "skip boot cycle" trick still needed?

2012-09-10 Thread Andrew Hughes
- Original Message - > I agree with Jon. SKIP_BOOT_CYCLE=false has been a useful and handy > test case (building JDK with the newly built JDK) to catch issues > early > on.Such functionality makes it easy and convenient to do the skip > boot cycle build via JPRT or our automated nightl

Re: Is the "skip boot cycle" trick still needed?

2012-09-10 Thread Mandy Chung
I agree with Jon. SKIP_BOOT_CYCLE=false has been a useful and handy test case (building JDK with the newly built JDK) to catch issues early on.Such functionality makes it easy and convenient to do the skip boot cycle build via JPRT or our automated nightly builds. FWIW - skip boot cycle b

Re: Is the "skip boot cycle" trick still needed?

2012-09-10 Thread Jonathan Gibbons
Using SKIP_BOOT_CYCLE=false has often flushed out bugs, and I would be concerned about its removal. Is it really that hard to provide the same functionality in the new build system? Surely, it should just be a matter of a couple of recursive makes at the top-level, the first into an "interim"

Is the "skip boot cycle" trick still needed?

2012-09-10 Thread Magnus Ihse Bursie
In the old system, one can set the oddly named SKIP_BOOT_CYCLE to false (which, internally, sets the slightly more clearly named DO_BOOT_CYCLE=true). This causes the product to build twice, the second time using the first build result as the boot jdk. This has been used, as I understand it, as