jtreg test test java/lang/ClassLoader/nativeLibrary/NativeLibraryTest.java

[David Holmes]

On 20/04/2018 1:51 AM, Siebenborn, Axel wrote:
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Mikael Vidstedt [mailto:mikael.vidstedt at oracle.com]
>>
>> Thanks for adding the comment. I’m curious, what was the reason for adding
>> it as a separate block? Does it mess up for jtreg to have it next to the
>> @requires itself in some way?
> 
> I wasn't sure where to add the add the comment. So, I just looked at other tests
> and the only comments to an '@require' I found, were made this way.

At some point jtreg started supporting an @comment tag, but it seems to 
be little known. I only stumbled on it by accident recently. It's not 
listed in the tag-spec:

http://openjdk.java.net/jtreg/tag-spec.html

David

>>
>> Cheers,
>> Mikael
>>
>>> On Apr 19, 2018, at 2:05 AM, Siebenborn, Axel
>> <axel.siebenborn at sap.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>> I added a comment and updated the webrev:
>>>
>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~asiebenborn/require_musl/webrev_run_time
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> Axel
>>>
>>>
>>> From: Mikael Vidstedt [mailto:mikael.vidstedt at oracle.com]
>>> Sent: Dienstag, 17. April 2018 19:25
>>> To: Siebenborn, Axel <axel.siebenborn at sap.com>
>>> Cc: David Holmes <david.holmes at oracle.com>; portola-
>> dev at openjdk.java.net
>>> Subject: Re: jtreg test test
>> java/lang/ClassLoader/nativeLibrary/NativeLibraryTest.java
>>>
>>>
>>> Looks good. Maybe a short comment about why the test is not run on
>> musl?
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> Mikael
>>>
>>> On Apr 12, 2018, at 7:33 AM, Siebenborn, Axel
>> <mailto:axel.siebenborn at sap.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: David Holmes [mailto:david.holmes at oracle.com]
>>> Sent: Donnerstag, 12. April 2018 14:17
>>> To: Siebenborn, Axel <mailto:axel.siebenborn at sap.com>; portola-
>>> mailto:dev at openjdk.java.net
>>> Subject: Re: jtreg test test
>>> java/lang/ClassLoader/nativeLibrary/NativeLibraryTest.java
>>>
>>> On 12/04/2018 9:34 PM, Siebenborn, Axel wrote:
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: portola-dev [mailto:portola-dev-bounces at openjdk.java.net] On
>>> Behalf Of Siebenborn, Axel
>>> Sent: Donnerstag, 12. April 2018 13:30
>>> To: David Holmes <mailto:david.holmes at oracle.com>; portola-
>>> mailto:dev at openjdk.java.net
>>> Subject: [CAUTION] RE: jtreg test test
>>> java/lang/ClassLoader/nativeLibrary/NativeLibraryTest.java
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: David Holmes [mailto:david.holmes at oracle.com]
>>> Sent: Donnerstag, 12. April 2018 12:54
>>> To: Siebenborn, Axel <axel.siebenborn at sap.com>; portola-
>>> dev at openjdk.java.net
>>> Subject: Re: jtreg test test
>>> java/lang/ClassLoader/nativeLibrary/NativeLibraryTest.java
>>>
>>> On 12/04/2018 8:12 PM, Siebenborn, Axel wrote:
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: David Holmes [mailto:david.holmes at oracle.com]
>>> Sent: Donnerstag, 12. April 2018 11:29
>>> To: Siebenborn, Axel <axel.siebenborn at sap.com>; portola-
>>> dev at openjdk.java.net
>>> Subject: Re: jtreg test test
>>> java/lang/ClassLoader/nativeLibrary/NativeLibraryTest.java
>>>
>>> On 12/04/2018 7:03 PM, Siebenborn, Axel wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>> As there is no whitebox function to identify musl, I added one:
>>>
>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~asiebenborn/require_musl/webrev/
>>>
>>> What do you think?
>>>
>>> That works, but is there a musl equivalent of gnu_get_libc_version? A
>>> simple native runtime check would be better than all the build time
>>> machinations if possible.
>>> I suppose there is nothing like that, on purpose.
>>> For the same reasons, there is no __MUSL__ macro equivalent to
>>> __GLIBC__:
>>>
>>> https://wiki.musl-
>>> libc.org/faq.html#Q:_why_is_there_no_MUSL_macro_.3F
>>>
>>> Typical unrealistic idealistic response. :(
>>>
>>> I suppose if you can't dllookup gnu_get_libc_version then you could
>>> assume it must be musl.
>>> Probably, that would work, but maybe a bit to hacky ��.
>>>
>>>
>>> In the build solution:
>>>
>>>    ifeq ($(HOTSPOT_TARGET_LIBC),musl)
>>>
>>> what sets this to musl? Is it a manually supplied configure arg?
>>>
>>> No need for a configure arg. It is determined by autoconf:
>>> /make/autoconf.platform.m4
>>> ... and config.guess parses the output of
>>> ldd --version
>>>
>>> Well there's another option then :)
>>>
>>> I added a new webrev using ldd --version:
>>>
>>>
>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~asiebenborn/require_musl/webrev_run_time/
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> Axel
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> David
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> David
>>>
>>>
>>> David
>>>
>>>
>>> Axel
>>>
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: David Holmes [mailto:david.holmes at oracle.com]
>>> Sent: Dienstag, 10. April 2018 13:44
>>> To: Siebenborn, Axel <mailto:axel.siebenborn at sap.com>; portola-
>>> mailto:dev at openjdk.java.net
>>> Subject: Re: jtreg test test
>>> java/lang/ClassLoader/nativeLibrary/NativeLibraryTest.java
>>>
>>> On 10/04/2018 9:24 PM, Siebenborn, Axel wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>> I had a look on the test
>>> java/lang/ClassLoader/nativeLibrary/NativeLibraryTest.java
>>>
>>>
>>> This test fails, because a  loaded native library is not removed by
>>> the
>>>
>>> GC.
>>>
>>> The native library should be unloaded by dlclose, but this is a noop
>>> in
>>>
>>> musl
>>>
>>> (https://wiki.musl-libc.org/functional-differences-from-
>>> glibc.html)
>>>
>>>
>>> Any idea, how this should be handled?
>>> Should this test be skipped for musl?
>>>
>>> I would say there is no choice :( Is there a whitebox function to
>>> identify musl so you can use @requires ?
>>>
>>> I don't buy their argument as to why dlclose is a no-op. Yes it's
>>> "safer" in the same sense that standing still is safer than moving -
>>> but
>>>
>>> nowhere near as useful.
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> David
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Axel
>>>
>