RFR(XS): 8066589: Make importing sa-jdi.jar optional on its existance

Volker Simonis volker.simonis at gmail.com
Tue Dec 9 17:12:33 UTC 2014

On Fri, Dec 5, 2014 at 10:11 AM, Erik Joelsson <erik.joelsson at oracle.com> wrote:
> Hello Volker,
> Are these the only conditions for when sa-jdi.jar is not built? If so, then
> I suppose this is fine.

Yes. But with my proposed solution any new platform may easily add
itself to the list of platforms which don't have the SA-agent.

> The old Import.gmk would only copy sa-jdi.jar if it existed, and I think we
> can keep that behavior, so just an existence check on sa-jdi.jar is good
> enough in Import.gmk. In Gensrc-jdk.jdi.gmk, checking if
> $(SUPPORT_OUTPUTDIR)/gensrc/jdk.hotspot.agent/_the.sa.services exists should
> be fine with me. We lose a bit of error checking in the build doing it that
> way as we won't fail if that file is missing for other reasons.

I don't quite understand. If a platform doesn't support the SA-agent
there's no need for any error checking. This fix doesn't change the
behaviour on any other platform except for aix-ppc64 and ZERO. Any
other platforms which don't support the SA just add themselves to the
lisst in the if-statement without affecting the other platforms.

> Note that this hacking of the service provider files is a temporary hack
> until service providers are properly handled in the modular world, so no
> need for fancy solutions.

OK fine. I've added one more tiny fix which was needed to build on
AIX. It's in an if-def AIX anyway, so it won't impact other platforms.
It just fixes the location of the static version of libjli:


OK to push now?


> /Erik
> On 2014-12-04 18:49, Volker Simonis wrote:
>> Hi,
>> could you please review this tiny change which fixes the build on
>> platforms which don't built the SA agent after the recent modualrity
>> integrations:
>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~simonis/webrevs/8066589
>> https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8066589
>> I've tested that the fix works on AIX but I havn't had a chance to build
>> Zero.
>> @Xerxes: maybe you could check if my suggested fix also solves your
>> build problems. I'm also no sure if the "ifneq ($(JVM_VARIANT_ZERO),
>> true)" clause also catches the ZEROSHARK case (altough I think it
>> should). If not we would need yet another "ifneq
>> Thanks,
>> Volker

More information about the build-dev mailing list