Is the "skip boot cycle" trick still needed?

[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_cycle_1 as the boot jdk.

You can also add explicit configure arguments:
sh common/bin/boot_cycle.sh --with-jvm-variants=server --with-boot-jdk=…..

and it will use the arguments to the configure invocations. The --with-boot-jdk= is of course
adjusted for the second cycle.

This boot_cycle.sh script has already demonstrated that  --enable-debug generates binaries
that crash on linux x64…… :-) something that we have to fix.

//Fredrik

10 sep 2012 kl. 17:09 skrev 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" build dir and the second using the result of the first as its ALT_BOOTDIR.
> 
> -- Jon
> 
> 
> On 09/10/2012 04:43 AM, Magnus Ihse Bursie wrote:
>> 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 a "poor mans integration test" -- if the build output could perform the feat of compiling the JDK, then it can't be that broken.
>> 
>> This kind of behaviour is not implemented in the new build system, and I propose that it should not be. The cost for implementing this is that all build system for all builds will be more complicated, but the gains are more unclear. To me, this is just a test, and it's a bit odd to have that as part of the build system. I also believe are now far better tests using jtreg, and if they are lacking -- then the tests should be improved, not the build system changed.
>> 
>> Is there anyone who would be protesting if the SKIP_BOOT_CYCLE functionality would be dropped in the new build system?
>> 
>> /Magnus
>