[OpenJDK 2D-Dev] [9] Review Request: 8042199 The build of J2DBench via makefile is broken after the JDK-8005402

Jim Graham james.graham at oracle.com
Mon Aug 11 21:34:21 UTC 2014

Hi Sergey,

Is the -g:none the result of #2 below?

Also, if I read the email trail correctly then source/target=1.6 is only 
there because JDK 9 compiler doesn't let you request anything earlier. 
The Readme doesn't mention this and it should.

Also, I'm not sure why it says that it requires at least 1.5 instead of 
1.4 now as there is no mention of any code changes that don't work on 
1.4 any more - were there?  The only explanation I saw below was the 
source/target specs allowed by the 9 compiler, not any results of trying 
to compile it on 1.4 or 1.5...

So, the Readme should minimally mention that source/target is set to 1.6 
in the makefile only because of support in the 9 compiler, and we should 
double check which compilers it actually is still buildable on and 
record that in the Readme.  (Again, maybe I missed the part where we 
tried it on 1.4 and failed, but it works on 1.5 - that wasn't included 


On 8/11/14 9:01 AM, Sergey Bylokhov wrote:
> Hello.
> Please review the new version of the fix:
> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~serb/8042199/webrev.01
>   - target&source changed to 1.6. But readme still mentions that
> benchmark requires at least jdk1.5 to compile.
>   - I found mismatch between ant/make about debug information. fixed
>   - the fix for 8005402 did not properly update makefiles for images. fixed
>   - dest was changed to dist, because this is default location of
> J2DBench.jar.
> On 07.08.2014 23:55, Jim Graham wrote:
>> The only intention was that we be able to compare against older
>> runtimes when needed.  We could ask whether we care about how we
>> currently compare against 1.2 any more...?  If we're really that
>> curious, we can either change the target and compile with an older
>> compiler, or find an older version of it (but that would be a little
>> apples-to-oranges).  In any case, we'd have options for doing it even
>> if they weren't as convenient as just running it on an older jvm.
>> It's "convenience and need" vs. "what's possible" and right now "need"
>> is probably a very small value (for <1.5) and "what's possible" just
>> changed...
>>             ...jim
>> On 8/7/14 11:31 AM, Phil Race wrote:
>>> Perhaps we have to make that the default but add a comment that since
>>> this
>>> is bundled with JDK 9 it must use at least a 1.6 target but the
>>> intention is
>>> that it be able to be compiled with and targeted to, earlier JDKs
>>> BTW I guess dest->dist is OK but I imagine Jim really did mean "dest"
>>> -#> java -jar dest/J2DBench.jar -batch -loadopts options/default.opt \
>>> +#> java -jar dist/J2DBench.jar -batch -loadopts options/default.opt \
>>> -phil.
>>> On 8/7/2014 9:23 AM, Sergey Bylokhov wrote:
>>>> Hello, Phil.
>>>> jdk 9 now supports "-target 1.6+/-source 1.6+" options only. Looks
>>>> like we should use this minimum version too.
>>>> If you have no objections I'll prepare the new version of the fix
>>>> On 14.05.2014 21:09, Phil Race wrote:
>>>>> Hmm .. the thing here is that I know that Jim was very keen that this
>>>>> benchmark always be runnable on JDK 1.2
>>>>> Deleting the comment to that effect and setting source level to 1.5
>>>>> goes against this.
>>>>> What is the rationale, and why can't it be reverted to be able to
>>>>> build on 1.4 and run
>>>>> on 1.2 ? If it uses JDK 1.5 language features, just back them out. If
>>>>> it uses JDK 1.5
>>>>> APIs then maybe Jim had to handle something similar and has an idea ?
>>>>> -phil.
>>>>> On 4/30/2014 4:13 AM, Andrew Brygin wrote:
>>>>>> Hello Sergey,
>>>>>>  the change looks fine to me.
>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>> Andrew
>>>>>> On 4/30/2014 3:12 PM, Sergey Bylokhov wrote:
>>>>>>> Hello.
>>>>>>> Please review the small fix for jdk 9.
>>>>>>> Makefile and README were fixed.
>>>>>>> Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8042199
>>>>>>> Webrev can be found at:
>>>>>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~serb/8042199/webrev.00
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> Best regards, Sergey.

More information about the 2d-dev mailing list