jdk10 : simplify jexec build settings

Tue Feb 14 16:57:02 UTC 2017

Hello,

Looks good to me.

Fixing jexec is a separate issue and not really build related.

/Erik

On 2017-02-14 17:27, Baesken, Matthias wrote:
>
> Hello, here is  the webrev :
>
> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~mbaesken/webrevs/8174242/ 
> <http://cr.openjdk.java.net/%7Embaesken/webrevs/8174242/>
>
> bug :
>
> https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8174242
>
> As discussed , I deleted the macosx   jexec.c    .
>
> Btw. I found out  that   jexec  does not work (fully?)  in jdk8 / 9  
>    ( seems  this has to do with the change  8156478: 3 Buffer overrun 
> defect groups in jexec.c   )
>
> Executing a         helloworld.jar  with  jexec   leads to
>
>      “invalid file (bad magic number): Exec format error”  .
>
> Should I open another bug for this ?
>
> Best regards, Matthias
>
> *From:*Baesken, Matthias
> *Sent:* Freitag, 10. Februar 2017 13:19
> *To:* 'Erik Joelsson' <erik.joelsson at oracle.com>; 
> build-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
>
> Hi Eric, thanks for the comment, I think I’ll remove the macosx source 
> file .
>
> Btw. is there already some test  for jexec (a “fast grep” through the  
> jdk  tests did not show me much) ?
>
> Best regards, Matthias
>
> *From:*Erik Joelsson [mailto:erik.joelsson at oracle.com]
> *Sent:* Freitag, 10. Februar 2017 09:49
> *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>; core-libs-dev at openjdk.java.net 
> <mailto:core-libs-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
>
> 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>
>     <mailto:erik.joelsson at oracle.com>; build-dev at openjdk.java.net
>     <mailto:build-dev at openjdk.java.net>;
>     'core-libs-dev at openjdk.java.net
>     <mailto:core-libs-dev at openjdk.java.net>'
>     <core-libs-dev at openjdk.java.net>
>     <mailto:core-libs-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 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
>