RFR: JDK-8149479: Fix compare.sh to have a clean baseline with COMPARE_BUILD

[Erik Joelsson]

Hello Tim,

New webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~erikj/8149479/webrev.02/

I agree about 1, so I started looking at it. Got confused why any 
changes to it didn't seem to have any effect until I realized the docs 
are no longer compared, which is what that was added for. So I fixed 
comparing of docs and reduced the sed expressions to what is actually 
necessary today, which was much less.

2 was indeed a typo and it could have hidden compare failures in my JPRT 
runs. Luckily, it was still clean.

I also fixed the comment Magnus pointed out.

/Erik

On 2016-02-10 07:13, Tim Bell wrote:
> Erik:
>
>> Please review these fixes for compare.sh and the COMPARE_BUILD flag 
>> for make.
>>
>> The rather new feature COMPARE_BUILD, which builds twice, applying 
>> some kind of change between them, is really neat. Especially when run 
>> through JPRT to check all platforms at once. The problem is that 
>> compare.sh currently isn't clean on all these platforms. There are 
>> also some special peculiarities particular to when JPRT is running 
>> the build which confuses compare.sh.
>>
>> Given that COMPARE_BUILD uses the exact same output directory, and 
>> JPRT sets the version-opt string to a fix value for both builds, we 
>> should be able to achieve a clean and stable baseline for an empty 
>> patch file. Which I now have.
>>
>> I also changed COMPARE_BUILD to fail the build when differences are 
>> found and added an option to COMPARE_BUILD to disable failing.
>>
>> Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8149479
>> Webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~erikj/8149479/webrev.01/
>
> 1) Regarding common/bin/compare.sh lines 336...341 and lines 344...349 
> in the new version - this is not directly related to 8149479 but I 
> wish those regexes were only coded once.  If they ever get out of sync 
> the results will be puzzling.
>
> 2) make/InitSupport.gmk line 366 in the new version - typo? 
> COMPARE_BUILD_FAILE is COMPARE_BUILD_FAIL elsewhere
>
> Looks good otherwise.
>
> Tim
>