Is the "skip boot cycle" trick still needed?

[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, Jonathan Gibbons wrote:
> 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
> 


-- 
Dmitry Samersoff
Java Hotspot development team, SPB04
* There will come soft rains ...