Is the "skip boot cycle" trick still needed?

[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 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
>