RFR: JDK-8072413 Configure should fail for VS2010 without SP1 since that cannot build
volker.simonis at gmail.com
Fri Dec 2 14:07:34 UTC 2016
On Fri, Dec 2, 2016 at 1:35 PM, Magnus Ihse Bursie
<magnus.ihse.bursie at oracle.com> wrote:
> On 2016-11-28 16:28, Volker Simonis wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 28, 2016 at 10:56 AM, Erik Joelsson
> <erik.joelsson at oracle.com> wrote:
> Looks good.
> On 2016-11-28 10:43, Magnus Ihse Bursie wrote:
> When building with VS2010 without SP1, the build will fail with:
> LINK : fatal error LNK1123: failure during conversion to COFF: file
> invalid or corrupt
> This creates frustration and support questions in the build mailing list
> from time to time.
> We should check for VS2010 without SP1 at configure time, and fail if this
> is detected.
> I don't think this is really an issue of VS2010 vs. VS2010 SP1. It is
> actually a problem of installation order. Please see my previous mail
> to build-dev
> and the corresponding stack overflow article:
> the COFF isue is a known problem with VS2010 after installing VS2012
> or .NET 4.5.1. There exist various workarounds - just google for "LINK
> : fatal error LNK1123: failure during conversion to COFF: file
> The easiest and fastes solution is to remove the bad version of
> "cvtres.exe" which is causing the problem as explained in the second
> answer at the stackowerflow question
> I'm still happily building with VS2010 and I don't see a reason why we
> should artificially prevent users from doing so.
> I see. The analysis in the bug report was apparently wrong.
> It seems that the proper (and only?) way to test this is to try to compile
> an rc file and see if it fails.
> This seems way too much work for an unlikely issue. I'll just drop that
> functionality as a wontfix.
> However, I still like the code I wrote that checks for a minimum version for
> the microsoft toolchain, as all the other toolchains. :-)
> I'm going to lower the version check to 16.00.30319.01 (2010 without SP1),
> repurpose the patch and try again.
yes the version check itself is nice :)
Maybe you can leave it in place as is but instead of failing just
write out a warning?
I don't know if a link to the appropriate stackoverflow article would
be acceptable here, but I think that would definitely help.
Otherwise I con provide a few lines which describe the problem and a
Thank you and best regards,
> Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8072413
More information about the build-dev