[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       openjdk-serviceability-dev
Subject:    Re: RFR: JDK-8067479: verify-modules fails in bootcycle build
From:       Staffan Larsen <staffan.larsen () oracle ! com>
Date:       2015-01-19 9:05:26
Message-ID: 3A3C541D-E976-44EC-A2DC-B663D0049A4F () oracle ! com
[Download RAW message or body]

SA changes look ok - the IA64 stuff isn't needed as we don't support it and will \
remove it.

/Staffan

> On 19 jan 2015, at 09:29, Erik Joelsson <erik.joelsson@oracle.com> wrote:
> 
> Hello,
> 
> Any chance someone from serviceability could take a look at this?
> 
> /Erik
> 
> On 2015-01-12 03:45, David Holmes wrote:
> > Hi Erik,
> > 
> > On 10/01/2015 12:34 AM, Erik Joelsson wrote:
> > > Hello,
> > > 
> > > Please review this patch which fixes the verify-modules target when
> > > running bootcycle build, and also reenables verify-modules when running
> > > "make images".
> > > 
> > > There were two problems:
> > > 
> > > * The bootcycle build configuration was broken so that both the normal
> > > and the bootcycle build used the same HOTSPOT_DIST directory. The
> > > consequence of this was that verify-modules worked when run on its own,
> > > but not if bootcycle-images had been run before. This is fixed in
> > > bootcycle-spec.gmk.in.
> > > 
> > > * Since javac in JDK 9 no longer emits classes for implicitly compiled
> > > sources, certain classes in sa-jdi.jar were not compiled during the
> > > bootcycle build. I fixed this by adding the missing classes to sa.files.
> > > Not having the classes there might have been intentional (in at least
> > > some cases), but since they were compiled anyway, I felt it safer to
> > > just add them to the list to fix this issue. If these classes shouldn't
> > > be included, then they need to be properly removed in a followup fix.
> > 
> > SA is owned by serviceability - cc'd. Changes seem okay as a solution to \
> > immediate problem, but I don't think anyone expects the IA64 stuff to still be \
> > needed. It is on the todo list to eradicate IA64 IIRC. 
> > Looks like there is limited awareness of the need to keep sa.files up to date. :(
> > 
> > Thanks,
> > David
> > 
> > > Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8067479
> > > Webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~erikj/8067479/webrev.01/
> > > 
> > > Since this is changing hotspot, I assume it will need to go in through a
> > > hotspot forest. Which one?
> > > 
> > > /Erik
> 


[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]