RFR: 8317510: Change Windows debug symbol files naming to avoid losing info when an executable and a library share the same name [v3]

[Thomas Stuefe]

On Mon, 9 Oct 2023 10:21:58 GMT, Frederic Thevenet <fthevenet at openjdk.org> wrote:

>> When building OpenJDK on Windows using "--with-native-debug-info=external", the resulting debug symbols are saved in files located in the same folder as the corresponding executable or library and named by swapping the extension ".exe" or ".dll" for a ".pdb" one (or "diz" if option "--with-native-debug-info=zipped" is used), which means that in the event of an exe and a dll file sharing the same target folder and file name (e.g. `bin\java.exe` and `bin\java.dll`), we have to choose whether symbols in `bin\java.pdb` will refer to the exe or the dll; we can't have both.
>> 
>> This PR addresses this issue by adopting a different naming strategy for the resulting symbol files where we keep the full name of every file - including its `dll` or `exe` extension) and then add the appropriate `.pdb`, `.map` or `.diz` extension .
>> 
>> For instance,  `jvm.dll` symbols are no longer called `jvm.pdb` but instead `jvm.dll.pdb`. Similarly, it is now `jvm.dll.diz` when using zipped symbols, and "jvm.dll.stripped.pdb" for stripped symbols (i.e. when "--with-external-symbols-in-bundles=public" is used).
>> 
>> The PR also removes the existing filtering for java.pdb, jimage.pdb and jpackage.pdb used to guaranty the dll symbols were bundled over the ones from the exe, since we no longer need that.
>
> Frederic Thevenet has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional commit since the last revision:
> 
>   Added a test to verify that symbols are available

> I finally opted to address the underlying issue by patching RunTestsPrebuilt.gmk, rather than GHA; #16343.
> 
> As for this PR, I see two possible ways forward; one is to remove the test and integrate the change without it as part of the current PR, and add the test back in a follow up once the RunTestsPrebuilt patch is integrated. The other is to convert this PR to a draft, wait for the separate fix to be integrated, and then rebase this PR on top of it and resume its review.
> 
> I like the first one better; a few more steps but overall less fussy. I'm also open to another solution.

+1 Vote for first option.

-------------

PR Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/16039#issuecomment-1777750064