[patch] fix hotspot build with small SC_ARG_MAX

[Tom Rodriguez]

Looks fine.

tom

On Sep 20, 2010, at 8:23 AM, Daniel D. Daugherty wrote:

> 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
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>