[OpenJDK 2D-Dev] RFR(XS): 8213944: Fix AIX build after the removal of Xrandr.h and add a configure check for it

[Volker Simonis]

Thanks everybody for the reviews.

If nobody raises a "Veto" (Phil?) I plan to push this fix tomorrow in
its current form.

I've also run it through the submit repo and got an error on Windows
for the test "runtime/modules/JVMDefineModule.java" which seems
completely unrelated to my change which only touches the X11
implementation on Unix. Can somebody please confirm that?

[Mach5] mach5-one-simonis-JDK-8213944-20181120-1629-11082: FAILED,
Failed tests: 1

runtime/modules/JVMDefineModule.java tier1 windows-x64-debug othervm
driver ExitCode: -1073741819

Mach5 Tasks Results Summary

UNABLE_TO_RUN: 0
FAILED: 0
EXECUTED_WITH_FAILURE: 1
KILLED: 0
PASSED: 75
NA: 0

Thank you and best regards,
Volker

On Tue, Nov 20, 2018 at 12:05 PM Magnus Ihse Bursie
<magnus.ihse.bursie at oracle.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 2018-11-19 18:56, Volker Simonis wrote:
> > Hi Phil,
> >
> > I'd like to kindly ask you to suggest how we can proceed with this issue.
> >
> > As I wrote before, Xrandr is not officially supported on AIX and there
> > are no official packages available for it. There are some OpenSource
> > sites for AIX which provide Xrandr, but they are all not compatible
> > with the default native libraries (e.g. the open source Xrandr package
> > depends on another open source package of Xrender.so.1 but the system
> > only provides Xrender.so.0 natively). We can't compile the whole JDK
> > (i.e. libawt_xawt.so) against some open source package of Xrender.so.1
> > because that simply won't be available on the majority of systems.
> >
> > Remember that forcing people to install these open-source packages
> > even as a build dependency is like expecting Linux users to install
> > some non-official packages just to be able to build. Especially in
> > corporate environments that's not easy. Moreover the benefit would be
> > really minimal, because the Xrandr functionality won't be available at
> > runtime anyway.
> >
> > So to cut a long story short, I see two options:
> >
> > 1. Go with my current patch (ugly but efficient)
> >
> > 2. Check-in in an AIX specific version of XRander.h/randr.h under
> > src/java.desktop/aix (OK for me, but that would actually negate the
> > initial purpose of "8210863: Remove Xrandr include files")
> >
> > Do you have a better proposal?
> I think the change look good, and I vote for strategy 1. As Thomas
> suggested, if the AIX ifdefs look bad we can create a new define, but
> I'm not sure that's really helpful - after all, it's just on AIX we
> currently have no r&r. Having a define would mostly be needed if it was
> multiple OSes, or similar more complex situations, that would have/not
> have the r&r extension.
>
> Yet another solution, to get rid of the ifdefs, is to move the relevant
> Xranrd dependent functions into a new, separate file, like
> awt_GraphicsEnv_randr.c, and then in the build exclude it on AIX (or,
> perhaps if it's worth the trouble, on all platforms where configure did
> not find Xrandr).
>
> /Magnus
>
> >
> > Thank you and best regards,
> > Volker
> >
> > On Fri, Nov 16, 2018 at 11:22 AM Volker Simonis
> > <volker.simonis at gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Thu, Nov 15, 2018 at 6:01 PM Philip Race <philip.race at oracle.com> wrote:
> >>> PS I am not sure why xrandr headers would not be available for AIX.
> >>> They are a standard part of the xdistribution.
> >>>
> >> I'm not an X11 guru, but as far as I understand, xrandr is an
> >> extension and as such it doesn't have to be supported by every
> >> implementation. To the best of my knowledge (I've just started another
> >> poll among some experts) AIX doesn't support Xrandr and does not have
> >> the corresponding headers.
> >>
> >>> If true, think what you are going to have to do is add a
> >>> --with-xrandr-include option
> >>> and provide it that way.
> >>>
> >> What if there are no standard Xrandr headers on a platform? Do you
> >> really want to force users to get them from some dubious sources just
> >> for building the OpenJDK? Sorry, but I don't think that's a good
> >> solution. Than I'd rather prefer the ugly ifdefs (or I check the
> >> headers back in again in an AIX-specific directory :)
> >>
> >> Thank you and best regards,
> >> Volker
> >>
> >>> -phil.
> >>>
> >>> On 11/15/18, 8:55 AM, Philip Race wrote:
> >>>> Hmm. I don't like the ifdefs.
> >>>>
> >>>> Xrandr is a requirement for the build. If its not there at runtime
> >>>> that's OK.
> >>>>
> >>>> -phil.
> >>>>
> >>>> On 11/15/18, 8:06 AM, Volker Simonis wrote:
> >>>>> Hi,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> can I please have a review for the following small change:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~simonis/webrevs/2018/8213944/
> >>>>> https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8213944
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Change JDK-8210863 removed the Xrandr.h/randr.h headers from the
> >>>>> OpenJDK sources but forgot to add a configure check for the Xrandr
> >>>>> extension which is now a build dependency.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The change also broke the AIX build. AIX never supported Xrandr, but
> >>>>> that was only detected at runtime, when the JDK was unable to
> >>>>> dynamically load libXrand.so. Now, without Xrandr.h/randr.h in the
> >>>>> source tree any more, we have to conditionally compile some parts of
> >>>>> src/java.desktop/unix/native/libawt_xawt/awt/awt_GraphicsEnv.c such
> >>>>> that it doesn't require the definitions and declarations from
> >>>>> Xrandr.h/randr.h any more.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Thank you and best regards,
> >>>>> Volker
>