RFR: Solaris 64-bit images
david.holmes at oracle.com
Mon May 21 19:01:32 PDT 2012
On 22/05/2012 6:03 AM, Chris Hegarty wrote:
> On 21/05/12 19:26, Kelly O'Hair wrote:
>> I think tests that want the 64bit version, should use the regular
>> bin/java -d64 not dive into the bin/sparcv9/ or bin/amd64 directories.
>> Just my opinion.
> Right, this is exactly what I was thinking. I really don't understand
> why anyone would be executing bin/[sparcv9|amd64]/java directly.
> Do these tests predate dual launcher support? Or any other historic
> reason it could be? Anyway, for now I'll just add them to the modules
> problem list and we can revisit when a more permanent solution for the
> images is found.
It might relate to the need to exec another Java process just like the
original. Some tests use particular techniques to find the Java under
test and that might (just speculating) require knowing for certain
whether it was 32-bit or 64-bit, otherwise they would also need to know
whether to pass -d64 or not.
Examining the tests should make this more clear.
>> On May 21, 2012, at 7:56 AM, Chris Hegarty wrote:
>>> On 21/05/2012 15:43, Chris Hegarty wrote:
>>>>> Chris - I looked at the changes and they look okay to me. I also
>>>>> the patch and it built a solaris-x64 image as I expected. I'm happy to
>>>>> push the changes for you. One small thing is that we have a couple of
>>>>> tests (launcher and JDI tests come to mind) that launch via
>>>>> amd64/bin or
>>>>> sparcv9/bin. We might need to add them to the ModulesProblemList.txt.
>>> I wonder why these tests invoke the 64-bit launcher directly? I
>>> notice most of them use the Process API to launch the java process.
>>> Is there an issue with launching with 'bin/java -d64' (and using the
>>> dual mode support of the launcher, if required), and redirecting the
>>> output or waiting for the process? Otherwise, I don't see why the
>>> test don't simply launch 'bin/java'.
>>> I guess what I'm asking is if these tests should be changed (to use
>>> bin/java) in the jdk8 mainline, rather than added to the problem list
>>> ( could be added temporarily of course)?
>>>> Oh, I didn't notice these tests. Let me look into these and for now
>>>> add them to the ModulesProblemList.txt.
More information about the jigsaw-dev