[patch] fix hotspot build with small SC_ARG_MAX

[Daniel D. Daugherty]

On 9/19/2010 5:49 PM, Kelly O'Hair wrote:
>
> On Sep 19, 2010, at 4:19 PM, Daniel D. Daugherty wrote:
>
>> I guess that three line comment before that block doesn't do
>> the job. :-(  Can you please suggest a change to the comment
>> to make it more clear.
>>
>
> Oh, ok, looking at it closer....  this particular make rule evaluation 
> characteristics is a bit unknown.
> I doubt many people will understand what is happening here.
> I guess I would have said something more to the point for the typical 
> person:
>   "The '$(shell rm)' instead of $(RM) here is critical due to the 
> foreach use in the rules."

I've rewritten the entire comment block. It should
be more clear now. Please let me know if you agree:

http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~dcubed/6985848-webrev/2/


>
>> The file lists are generated at variable expansion time so we
>> have to do the remove at variable expansion time also. The
>> round 0 fix for 6985848 did the remove as a part of rule
>> execution, but that's too late and causes the javac to fail.
>
> The fact that AGENT_FILES1 and AGENT_FILES2 contains wildcards. I'm 
> suspecting a simple:
> find $(AGENT_SRC_DIR) -type f -name \*.java > list
> would work just as well, assuming the agent sources in the repository 
> all need to be built.
> But I know you are just trying to fix one issue and not redesign the 
> sa makefiles.

Redesigning the SA makefiles is tempting, but definitely not
high on my priority list.


> Your change should work.

It made it through a test JPRT job over the weekend and I verified
that an incremental build did not rebuild sa-jdi.jar on my machine
here in Colorado.

Dan


>
> -kto
>
>>
>> Dan
>>
>>
>> On 9/19/2010 2:08 PM, Kelly O'Hair wrote:
>>> Why are you using
>>>    $(shell rm -f -r ... )
>>> instead of
>>>   $(RM) -r ...
>>>
>>> ???
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sep 17, 2010, at 9:49 PM, Daniel D. Daugherty wrote:
>>>
>>>> I messed up the rule expansion... :-(
>>>>
>>>> Here's another shot:
>>>>
>>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~dcubed/6985848-webrev/1/
>>>>
>>>> This time I added a comment so the subtle difference
>>>> between macro/variable expansion versus rule execution
>>>> is a little more clear. I hope...
>>>>
>>>> Dan
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 9/17/2010 2:31 PM, Daniel D. Daugherty wrote:
>>>>> Greetings,
>>>>>
>>>>> The fix for this bug (6561870) has caused the sa-jdi.jar file to
>>>>> always be rebuilt. I have a minor tweak that fixes that problem:
>>>>>
>>>>>  http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~dcubed/6985848-webrev/0/
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks to Coleen for spotting this issue!
>>>>>
>>>>> The folks on the "To" list were on the original review team
>>>>> for 6561870. I would like to hear from at least two of those
>>>>> folks on this tweak.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks, in advance, for the reviews!
>>>>>
>>>>> Dan
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 9/3/2010 6:12 PM, Daniel D. Daugherty wrote:
>>>>>> Here is the revised webrev:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~dcubed/6561870-webrev/1/
>>>>>>
>>>>>> One reviewer will do, I think...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Dan
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 9/1/2010 12:17 PM, Tom Rodriguez wrote:
>>>>>>> Can the agent list files go into $(GENERATED) instead of 
>>>>>>> $(TOPDIR)?  Otherwise this looks good.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> tom
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Sep 1, 2010, at 10:55 AM, Daniel D. Daugherty wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I'm finally getting back to this thread. Since I'm also applying
>>>>>>>> Matthias' changes to the Solaris sa.makefile, I figured I would
>>>>>>>> send out a webrev:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~dcubed/6561870-webrev/0/
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Kelly and Christian, can I get re-reviews from the two of you?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Matthias, can you verify that I got the Solaris port of your
>>>>>>>> changes correct?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Thanks, in advance, for any reviews...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Dan
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 8/25/2010 10:22 AM, Daniel D. Daugherty wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 8/25/2010 10:11 AM, Christian Thalinger wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 2010-08-25 at 10:00 -0600, Daniel D. Daugherty wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks for the reviews Kelly and Christian.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Is there a reason to not apply these changes to the solaris and
>>>>>>>>>>> windows versions also? I haven't looked yet, but I figured I
>>>>>>>>>>> would ask...
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Yeah, I also thought about this for Solaris and it should 
>>>>>>>>>> work there as
>>>>>>>>>> on Linux.  Don't know about Windows, though.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Looks like Windows already uses a "make" construct instead of 
>>>>>>>>> running
>>>>>>>>> into the shell command line limitation:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> $(GENERATED)\sa-jdi.jar: $(AGENT_FILES1:/=\) $(AGENT_FILES2:/=\)
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> <snip>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>      @$(COMPILE_JAVAC) -source 1.4 -target 1.4 -classpath 
>>>>>>>>>> $(SA_CLASSPATH) -so
>>>>>>>>>> urcepath $(AGENT_SRC_DIR) -d $(SA_CLASSDIR) $(AGENT_FILES1:/=\)
>>>>>>>>>>      @$(COMPILE_JAVAC) -source 1.4 -target 1.4 -classpath 
>>>>>>>>>> $(SA_CLASSPATH) -so
>>>>>>>>>> urcepath $(AGENT_SRC_DIR) -d $(SA_CLASSDIR) $(AGENT_FILES2:/=\)
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I also think this is an "nmake" Makefile instead of a GNU 
>>>>>>>>> Makefile.
>>>>>>>>> I think I'll look at applying the changes to the Solaris 
>>>>>>>>> Makefile and
>>>>>>>>> leave the Windows stuff alone :-)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Dan
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>