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

[Erik Joelsson]

http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~erikj/7141246/webrev.03/ 
<http://cr.openjdk.java.net/%7Eerikj/7141246/webrev.03/>

Removed all references to "minimal". Also cleaned up the defaults 
section a bit.

/Erik

On 2012-03-14 09:17, Erik Joelsson wrote:
>
>
> On 2012-03-14 06:00, David Holmes wrote:
>> Hi Erik,
>>
>> 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.
>>
> I can agree that it seems weird. What is the timeframe for removing 
> kernel and introducing minimal in jdk8? If it's far off I can see it 
> making sense for us to revert the name MINIMAL to KERNEL for the whole 
> project. It will be more work converting back later though.
>> 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).
>>
> I have not checked with them specifically, no. I'm guessing that the 
> old variables were defined like that because it made the checks easy 
> to write since zero and shark share a lot of settings in the 
> makefiles. As I understand it, what we would like to express with the 
> JVM_VARIANT is a configuration resulting in a separate jvm binary. If 
> you define two or more variants, you will end up with that many 
> binaries. This is already true for SERVER, CLIENT and KERNEL. We would 
> like all the variants to be controlled and expressed in the same way. 
> These changes unfortunately won't take us all the way, but it's a 
> first step.
>
> /Erik
>> ---
>>
>> /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
>>>