Backporting an AsyncGetCallTrace patch to OpenJDK6

[Tom Rodriguez]

As far as I can tell this looks like a faithful backport of the  
changes to hs10, which is good.  The obvious complexity of the  
comparing the results is that hs10 which is what is currently in  
openjdk6 still have separate amd64 and i486 directory whereas hs11 and  
later have a merged x86 directory.  I believe OpenJDK 6 is planning to  
move to hs11 which should make applying the original patch unchanged a  
little more straightforward.  The original changes were motivated by a  
lot of direct testing of the VM under collector.  Have you done any  
testing of these changes?

tom

On Sep 17, 2008, at 4:50 PM, Hiroshi Yamauchi wrote:

> Hi, Any comment about the patch itself?
>
> On Fri, Sep 12, 2008 at 11:37 AM, Joseph D. Darcy  
> <Joe.Darcy at sun.com> wrote:
>> Joseph D. Darcy wrote:
>>>
>>> Andrew John Hughes wrote:
>>>>
>>>> 2008/9/11 Andrew John Hughes <gnu_andrew at member.fsf.org>:
>>>>>
>>>>> 2008/9/11 Daniel D. Daugherty <Daniel.Daugherty at sun.com>:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Andrew John Hughes wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> FWIW, I don't see any change to the HS_ version numbers in our
>>>>>> patch to switch from OpenJDK6 b11's to OpenJDK7 b24's HotSpot.
>>>>>> Given OpenJDK6 was derived from something like b20, I guess  
>>>>>> this is
>>>>>> not that strange.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> JDK7-B24 has the following values:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>   HS_MAJOR_VER=12
>>>>>>   HS_MINOR_VER=0
>>>>>>   HS_BUILD_NUMBER=01
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Joe stated earlier in this thread that OpenJDK6 is based on
>>>>>> HSX-10 so its values should not be the same. For 1.6.0_07,
>>>>>> I see:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>   HS_MAJOR_VER=10
>>>>>>   HS_MINOR_VER=0
>>>>>>   HS_BUILD_NUMBER=23
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Dan
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> Hmmm...
>>>>> Then either Gary's HotSpot patch doesn't update that file or  
>>>>> OpenJDK6
>>>>> is not based on the same as this 1.6.0_07 thing you mention.
>>>>> I'll try and have a closer look later.
>>>>> --
>>>>> Andrew :-)
>>>>>
>>>>> Support Free Java!
>>>>> Contribute to GNU Classpath and the OpenJDK
>>>>> http://www.gnu.org/software/classpath
>>>>> http://openjdk.java.net
>>>>>
>>>>> PGP Key: 94EFD9D8 (http://subkeys.pgp.net)
>>>>> Fingerprint: F8EF F1EA 401E 2E60 15FA 7927 142C 2591 94EF D9D8
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> IcedTea6 contains:
>>>>
>>>> HS_MAJOR_VER=10
>>>> HS_MINOR_VER=0
>>>> HS_BUILD_NUMBER=19
>>>>
>>>> IcedTea/b33 contains:
>>>>
>>>> HS_MAJOR_VER=14
>>>> HS_MINOR_VER=0
>>>> HS_BUILD_NUMBER=01
>>>>
>>>> icedtea-hotspot-6b11-7b24.patch only updates the src code and not
>>>> make/hotspot_version
>>>> so it's actually worryingly building a different version of HotSpot
>>>> from the one it thinks it is.
>>>> It will actually be 12-0-01 as you state, but will report 10-0-19.
>>>>
>>>> Overall, it would be better to always build against the most recent
>>>> stable HotSpot tree if possible
>>>> rather than the one provided by the build drop.  Do we know what  
>>>> the
>>>> most stable would be?
>>>
>>> Generally, the HotSpot in the base OpenJDK 6 should be pretty  
>>> stable. The
>>> policy I've implemented,
>>> http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/jdk6-dev/2008-February/000005.html 
>>> ,
>>> for the HotSpot in OpenJDK 6 is to track fixes in the 6 update  
>>> releases,
>>> augmented with some other fixes for license corrections, gcc build  
>>> issues,
>>> (and the occasional Eclipse crash).  The HotSpot in the base  
>>> OpenJDK 6 code
>>> base is very close to the HotSpot in the currently shipping 6 update
>>> release.
>>
>> ... and going forward we will have much closer coordination between  
>> the
>> OpenJDK 6 and 6 update HotSpots since we'll be using the same  
>> source for
>> both; so the version information should be updated consistently, etc.
>>
>> http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/jdk6-dev/2008-September/000150.html
>>
>> -Joe
>>