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

Mon Nov 26 22:16:07 UTC 2018

Side note, I wondered whether IBM does anything original in their
openj9 (the jdk parts they forked off OpenJDK) since they are
targetting AIX too and must be having the same build error. But I
cannot find anything they did:

---
thomas at t450:/shared/projects/openjdk/j9/openj9-openjdk-jdk$ git log --
src/java.desktop/unix/native/libawt_xawt/awt/awt_GraphicsEnv.c
commit 32743992c57206a56b7c1e08f6b870458a481c94
Author: simonis <unknown>
Date:   Thu Nov 22 09:44:02 2018 +0100

    8213944: Fix AIX build after the removal of Xrandr.h and add a
configure check for it
    Reviewed-by: shade, erikj, stuefe, ihse, goetz

commit 5ca5123bc3859e335c1173a5969bde487e6b5ad4
Author: prr <unknown>
Date:   Wed Oct 31 16:58:37 2018 -0700

    8210863: Remove Xrandr include files from JDK sources
    Reviewed-by: serb
---

So, I wonder, they just live with a broken openj9 build for 22 days?

..Thomas

On Mon, Nov 26, 2018 at 9:37 PM Phil Race <philip.race at oracle.com> wrote:
>
> Well .. I see this was pushed whilst I was on vacation.
> I would not have voted for the fix in its current form. The
> "HAVE_XRANDR" would
> have been  less bad. If (say) HPUX has the same issue you
> haven't really helped them with an AIX specific change in the source file.
> It would have been better to confine all of that decision making to the
> make files.
>
> Can we re-do this ? And since it'll be less urgent the follow up can be
> pushed to jdk/client.
>
> But I really don't get why AIX doesn't have XRANDR.
> I understood that it might not have GDK - which is why - you may remember -
> we checked into that when looking at options for the Robot imported sources
> and deferred that, but XRANDR ??? I think this is an AIX "bug" which should
> be reported to IBM.
>
> -phil.
>
>
> On 11/20/18 10:13 AM, Volker Simonis wrote:
> > 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
>