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

Fri Apr 20 06:59:37 UTC 2018

> 
> On 20/04/2018 8:10 AM, David Holmes wrote:
> > 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
> 
> Added 6 months ago:
> 
> http://hg.openjdk.java.net/code-tools/jtreg/rev/be78b85a101e
> 
> David

Yes, seems to be little known, as nobody uses it. ��
However, it works.
New webrev:

http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~asiebenborn/require_musl/webrev_at_comment/

Cheers,
Axel

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