RFR: JDK-8148929: Suboptimal code generated when setting sysroot include with Solaris Studio

David Holmes david.holmes at oracle.com
Fri Feb 5 00:50:43 UTC 2016

On 5/02/2016 8:07 AM, Magnus Ihse Bursie wrote:
> On 2016-02-04 22:55, Erik Joelsson wrote:
>> I followed a suggestion from Magnus to compare a devkit build using
>> the new option with a non devkit build, on a Solaris machine with as
>> close to a matching install as the sysroot as I could find. The
>> comparison of libjvm.so is clean according to compare.sh. (Comparing
>> the sorted list of symbols, dependencies, and disassembly output where
>> dynamically generated symbols and addresses have been filtered out)
> Sounds good.
>> With this I feel pretty confident about adding the new option.
> Me too.

Me three. Thanks for doing the validation work.


> /Magnus
>> /Erik
>> On 2016-02-04 16:56, Erik Joelsson wrote:
>>> A full hotspot run of all solaris targets succeeded with the change.
>>> /Erik
>>> On 2016-02-04 14:51, Erik Joelsson wrote:
>>>> Differences are extensive in most C++ object files. The problem with
>>>> viewing dissassembly diffs is that any difference tend to change all
>>>> addresses later in the file.
>>>> /Erik
>>>> On 2016-02-04 13:43, Erik Joelsson wrote:
>>>>> I will investigate and report back.
>>>>> /Erik
>>>>> On 2016-02-04 13:29, David Holmes wrote:
>>>>>> On 4/02/2016 9:27 PM, Magnus Ihse Bursie wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2016-02-03 14:33, Erik Joelsson wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2016-02-03 13:59, David Holmes wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Hi Erik,
>>>>>>>>> On 3/02/2016 10:48 PM, Erik Joelsson wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Hello,
>>>>>>>>>> Please review this small fix for building on Solaris using a
>>>>>>>>>> devkit/sysroot. The Solaris Studio compiler does special
>>>>>>>>>> inlining and
>>>>>>>>>> intrinsics with system calls, like memcpy. The problem is that
>>>>>>>>>> it only
>>>>>>>>>> seems to do this if it finds the definition of the system call
>>>>>>>>>> in a
>>>>>>>>>> header file in the /usr/include directory. See bug description
>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>> comments for details.
>>>>>>>>>> I have found a way to work around this. Internally, the
>>>>>>>>>> compiler adds
>>>>>>>>>> the option -I-xbuiltin to mark the start of the system header
>>>>>>>>>> includes
>>>>>>>>>> when calling a sub process. By adding this to our
>>>>>>>>>> SYSROOT_CFLAGS, the
>>>>>>>>>> special inlining is re-enabled.
>>>>>>>>> We have no way of knowing whether that will mess with the
>>>>>>>>> compilers
>>>>>>>>> use of other header files. We seem to be on very thin ice here. We
>>>>>>>>> know it fixes this one problem, but we don't know what else it
>>>>>>>>> may do!
>>>>>>>> That is true. But then, we don't really know what else this
>>>>>>>> compiler
>>>>>>>> is doing anyway, as is evident by your latest discovery. The way we
>>>>>>>> live with this is testing. We use the setup we have until it proves
>>>>>>>> not to work, we fix and we test. I'm just trying to do the best
>>>>>>>> I can
>>>>>>>> with what we have. I would much prefer to ditch SS for gcc/clang
>>>>>>>> (where we seem to have way less problems) if it was my choice.
>>>>>>>> I'm not
>>>>>>>> ready to give up the convenience of devkits/portable sysroots just
>>>>>>>> because one of the compilers we (have to) use needs a bit of
>>>>>>>> special
>>>>>>>> handling to behave properly.
>>>>>>> I agree that this is a situation that's not really comfortable.
>>>>>>> :( But,
>>>>>>> as with many other things with the solaris studio compiler, in
>>>>>>> the end
>>>>>>> it's a result of the limited functionality of that compiler (in this
>>>>>>> case, the lack of a properly functioning --sysroot alternative).
>>>>>>> So in light of that, and Erik's comment about testing as the only
>>>>>>> way to
>>>>>>> be sure, I'd like to see Eriks fix get in.
>>>>>> Do we have the means to do a binary comparison of the object files
>>>>>> before/after the change to ascertain what kind of affect this is
>>>>>> having?
>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>> David
>>>>>>> /Magnus
>>>>>>>> /Erik

More information about the build-dev mailing list