RFR(XS): 8066589: Make importing sa-jdi.jar optional on its existance
dmitry.samersoff at oracle.com
Tue Dec 9 17:23:46 UTC 2014
Please notice, there is work-in-progress to cease out any dependencies
to jdk.hotspot.agent from other modules.
On 2014-12-09 20:12, Volker Simonis wrote:
> 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
>> $(SUPPORT_OUTPUTDIR)/gensrc/jdk.hotspot.agent/_the.sa.services exists should
>> be fine with me. We lose a bit of error checking in the build doing it that
>> way as we won't fail if that file is missing for other reasons.
> I don't quite understand. If a platform doesn't support the SA-agent
> there's no need for any error checking. This fix doesn't change the
> behaviour on any other platform except for aix-ppc64 and ZERO. Any
> other platforms which don't support the SA just add themselves to the
> lisst in the if-statement without affecting the other platforms.
>> Note that this hacking of the service provider files is a temporary hack
>> until service providers are properly handled in the modular world, so no
>> need for fancy solutions.
> OK fine. I've added one more tiny fix which was needed to build on
> AIX. It's in an if-def AIX anyway, so it won't impact other platforms.
> It just fixes the location of the static version of libjli:
> OK to push now?
>> On 2014-12-04 18:49, Volker Simonis wrote:
>>> could you please review this tiny change which fixes the build on
>>> platforms which don't built the SA agent after the recent modualrity
>>> I've tested that the fix works on AIX but I havn't had a chance to build
>>> @Xerxes: maybe you could check if my suggested fix also solves your
>>> build problems. I'm also no sure if the "ifneq ($(JVM_VARIANT_ZERO),
>>> true)" clause also catches the ZEROSHARK case (altough I think it
>>> should). If not we would need yet another "ifneq
>>> ($(JVM_VARIANT_ZEROSHARK), true)"
Oracle Java development team, Saint Petersburg, Russia
* I would love to change the world, but they won't give me the sources.
More information about the build-dev