Review Request: 7141246 build-infra merge: Introduce new JVM_VARIANT* to control which kind of jvm gets built

[David Holmes]

Hi Erik,

On 14/03/2012 12:19 AM, Erik Joelsson wrote:
> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~erikj/7141246/webrev.02
>
> New webrev posted. Removed all renames of KERNEL->MINIMAL. We would
> still like to keep the name of the new JVM_VARIANT variable if possible.

I find it confusing to convert KERNEL_BUILD->(JVM_VARIANT_MINIMAL=true) 
and then check for JVM_VARIANT_MINIMAL, instead of just defining 
JVM_VARIANT_KERNEL. Particularly when KERNEL is used in a bunch of other 
variables.

make/Makefile

Are the Shark/Zero folk okay with the shark/zero changes? If I 
understand correctly, today if SHARK_BUILD==true then ZERO_BUILD==true, 
but in the new scheme JVM_VARIANT_ZEROSHARK and JVM_VARIANT_ZERO are 
distinct (but the name ZEROSHARK implies ZERO and SHARK).

---

/make/defs.make

   74   ifeq ($(ZERO_BUILD)$(KERNEL_BUILD)$(SHARK_BUILD),)
   75     # A default is needed
   76     ifeq ($(BUILD_CLIENT_ONLY), true)
   77       JVM_VARIANTS:=client
   78       JVM_VARIANT_CLIENT:=true
   79     endif
   80     # Further defaults are platform and arch specific

I don't understand why we would only need a default in the 
BUILD_CLIENT_ONLY case. Is this just to avoid replicating the 
BUILD_CLIENT_ONLY check in the platform specific makefiles?

David
-----


> /Erik
>> You seem to have included the MINIMAL VM changes in here. Those changes
>> have not been pushed to the mainline and are not yet to be pushed. If
>> you want to push these build-infra changes you will need to factor out
>> the MINIMAL VM stuff - else wait.
>>
>> David
>