jdk10 : simplify jexec build settings

[Erik Joelsson]

Since the file has never been built, I would say remove the macosx 
source file. You can point directly to the unix source dir if you prefer 
too. No need to have dead logic for macosx in the makefile.

/Erik


On 2017-02-09 15:27, Baesken, Matthias wrote:
>
> I compared the  jexec.c  versions for  macosx and unix
>
> ( jdk/src/java.base/macosx/native/launcher/jexec.c    and 
>  jdk/src/java.base/unix/native/launcher/jexec.c )
>
> And to me it looks like  the  unix version could be used for macosx 
> too  (just in case there is a need to reenable the build of jexec.c  
> for macosx one day again).
>
> Comments / suggestions ?
>
> Best regards, Matthias
>
> *From:*Baesken, Matthias
> *Sent:* Donnerstag, 9. Februar 2017 14:10
> *To:* 'Erik Joelsson' <erik.joelsson at oracle.com>; 
> build-dev at openjdk.java.net; 'core-libs-dev at openjdk.java.net' 
> <core-libs-dev at openjdk.java.net>
> *Cc:* Langer, Christoph <christoph.langer at sap.com>
> *Subject:* RE: jdk10 : simplify jexec build settings
>
> Hello Erik, thanks for the comments .
>
> >>Then there is handling for macosx left , but the build is not enabled for macosx, 
> does it still make sense to include the macosx handling (there is even 
> a separate jexec.c for macosx) :
>
> >
>
> >This is indeed weird. I don't think we ever built jexec for macosx so the 
> source file should likely be removed. That is however a question for 
> core-libs I think.
>
> I include core-libs-dev , can someone comment on  jexec on macosx ?
>
> Currently jexec.c  is not compiled for macosx (jdk9/10), see 
>  jdk/make/launcher/Launcher-java.base.gmk  .
>
> It is just compiled on linux .
>
> So I wonder -  is it ok to remove  the macosx handling  in the 
> mentioned  makefile jdk/make/launcher/Launcher-java.base.gmk   for 
>  jexec ?
>
> >This will automatically look in all the directories where source files are 
> supposed to be and pick the most specific one if there are any with 
> the same name.
>
> >Since the share launcher dir contains more src files, you will need to 
> leave the INCLUDE_FILES := jexec.c this time.
>
> From what I observe in the linux  build log,  just jexec.c  is 
> compiled into jexec.o and then this single object is used to create 
> the executable (“program”)  jexec.
>
> Other src files are not used in the compilation of jexec, so just 
> using   $(JDK_TOPDIR)/src/$(MODULE)/unix/native/launcher   would be 
> fine (as long as macosx can be dropped).
>
> Best regards, Matthias
>
> *From:*Erik Joelsson [mailto:erik.joelsson at oracle.com]
> *Sent:* Donnerstag, 9. Februar 2017 13:42
> *To:* Baesken, Matthias <matthias.baesken at sap.com 
> <mailto:matthias.baesken at sap.com>>; build-dev at openjdk.java.net 
> <mailto:build-dev at openjdk.java.net>
> *Cc:* Langer, Christoph <christoph.langer at sap.com 
> <mailto:christoph.langer at sap.com>>
> *Subject:* Re: jdk10 : simplify jexec build settings
>
> Hello,
>
> On 2017-02-09 12:36, Baesken, Matthias wrote:
>
>     Hello , while adjusting the jspawnhelper build settings with
>     8174086, it has been noticed that the jexec build settings need
>     some simplification as well.
>
>     The bug
>
>     https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8174242
>
>     has been created for this.
>
>     When looking into it,  I had some questions :
>
>     http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk10/jdk10/jdk/file/ae7afa9abe67/make/launcher/Launcher-java.base.gmk
>
>     The makefile (make/launcher/Launcher-java.base.gmk )  handles
>     Solaris 32bit,  but is this really  supported  in jdk 9 or 10  ( I
>     think it was removed in 9 and only 64bit Solaris support remains ) ?
>
> We do not support 32bit Solaris. The issue with jexec for Solaris was 
> raised a while back and the conclusion was to scrap support, so no 
> need to build it for Solaris at all.
>
>     ifeq ($(OPENJDK_TARGET_OS), solaris)
>
>       ifeq ($(OPENJDK_TARGET_CPU_BITS), 32)
>
>         BUILD_JEXEC := 1
>
>       endif
>
>     endif
>
>     ifeq ($(OPENJDK_TARGET_OS), linux)
>
>       BUILD_JEXEC := 1
>
>     endif # OPENJDK_TARGET_OS
>
>     #
>
>     # jdk/make/java/jexec/Makefile
>
>     #
>
>     ifeq ($(BUILD_JEXEC), 1)
>
>     Then there is handling for macosx left , but the build is not
>     enabled for macosx, does it still make sense to include the macosx
>     handling (there is even a separate jexec.c for macosx) :
>
> This is indeed weird. I don't think we ever built jexec for macosx so 
> the source file should likely be removed. That is however a question 
> for core-libs I think.
>
> The makefile logic shouldn't need to be that specific though. Our 
> modern pattern for this is something like this:
>
> SRC := $(call uniq, $(wildcard \
> $(JDK_TOPDIR)/src/$(MODULE)/$(OPENJDK_TARGET_OS)/native/launcher \
> $(JDK_TOPDIR)/src/$(MODULE)/$(OPENJDK_TARGET_OS_TYPE)/native/launcher \
> $(JDK_TOPDIR)/src/$(MODULE)/share/native/launcher))
>
> This will automatically look in all the directories where source files 
> are supposed to be and pick the most specific one if there are any 
> with the same name. Since the share launcher dir contains more src 
> files, you will need to leave the INCLUDE_FILES := jexec.c this time.
>
> For libraries, we have abstracted this construct in the macro 
> FindSrcDirForLib (LibCommon.gmk) but we haven't done the same for 
> launchers yet.
>
> /Erik
>
>       ifeq ($(OPENJDK_TARGET_OS), windows)
>
>       else ifeq ($(OPENJDK_TARGET_OS), macosx)
>
>         BUILD_JEXEC_SRC :=
>     $(JDK_TOPDIR)/src/java.base/macosx/native/launcher
>
>       else
>
>         BUILD_JEXEC_SRC :=
>     $(JDK_TOPDIR)/src/java.base/unix/native/launcher
>
>       endif
>
>     Should I remove the solaris 32bit / macosx handling  for jexec 
>     from  make/launcher/Launcher-java.base.gmk ?
>
>     Regards, Matthias
>