[OpenJDK 2D-Dev] RFR(XS): 8213944: Fix AIX build after the removal of Xrandr.h and add a configure check for it

Magnus Ihse Bursie magnus.ihse.bursie at oracle.com
Wed Nov 21 12:30:38 UTC 2018


On 2018-11-20 19:13, Volker Simonis wrote:

> Thanks everybody for the reviews.
>
> If nobody raises a "Veto" (Phil?) I plan to push this fix tomorrow in
> its current form.
I think this sounds reasonable.
>
> I've also run it through the submit repo and got an error on Windows
> for the test "runtime/modules/JVMDefineModule.java" which seems
> completely unrelated to my change which only touches the X11
> implementation on Unix. Can somebody please confirm that?
I looked at the test. It does not seem to involve X11 at all, so I'd say 
this was a fluke, yes.

/Magnus
>
> [Mach5] mach5-one-simonis-JDK-8213944-20181120-1629-11082: FAILED,
> Failed tests: 1
>
> runtime/modules/JVMDefineModule.java tier1 windows-x64-debug othervm
> driver ExitCode: -1073741819
>
> Mach5 Tasks Results Summary
>
> UNABLE_TO_RUN: 0
> FAILED: 0
> EXECUTED_WITH_FAILURE: 1
> KILLED: 0
> PASSED: 75
> NA: 0
>
> Thank you and best regards,
> Volker
>
> On Tue, Nov 20, 2018 at 12:05 PM Magnus Ihse Bursie
> <magnus.ihse.bursie at oracle.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 2018-11-19 18:56, Volker Simonis wrote:
>>> Hi Phil,
>>>
>>> I'd like to kindly ask you to suggest how we can proceed with this issue.
>>>
>>> As I wrote before, Xrandr is not officially supported on AIX and there
>>> are no official packages available for it. There are some OpenSource
>>> sites for AIX which provide Xrandr, but they are all not compatible
>>> with the default native libraries (e.g. the open source Xrandr package
>>> depends on another open source package of Xrender.so.1 but the system
>>> only provides Xrender.so.0 natively). We can't compile the whole JDK
>>> (i.e. libawt_xawt.so) against some open source package of Xrender.so.1
>>> because that simply won't be available on the majority of systems.
>>>
>>> Remember that forcing people to install these open-source packages
>>> even as a build dependency is like expecting Linux users to install
>>> some non-official packages just to be able to build. Especially in
>>> corporate environments that's not easy. Moreover the benefit would be
>>> really minimal, because the Xrandr functionality won't be available at
>>> runtime anyway.
>>>
>>> So to cut a long story short, I see two options:
>>>
>>> 1. Go with my current patch (ugly but efficient)
>>>
>>> 2. Check-in in an AIX specific version of XRander.h/randr.h under
>>> src/java.desktop/aix (OK for me, but that would actually negate the
>>> initial purpose of "8210863: Remove Xrandr include files")
>>>
>>> Do you have a better proposal?
>> I think the change look good, and I vote for strategy 1. As Thomas
>> suggested, if the AIX ifdefs look bad we can create a new define, but
>> I'm not sure that's really helpful - after all, it's just on AIX we
>> currently have no r&r. Having a define would mostly be needed if it was
>> multiple OSes, or similar more complex situations, that would have/not
>> have the r&r extension.
>>
>> Yet another solution, to get rid of the ifdefs, is to move the relevant
>> Xranrd dependent functions into a new, separate file, like
>> awt_GraphicsEnv_randr.c, and then in the build exclude it on AIX (or,
>> perhaps if it's worth the trouble, on all platforms where configure did
>> not find Xrandr).
>>
>> /Magnus
>>
>>> Thank you and best regards,
>>> Volker
>>>
>>> On Fri, Nov 16, 2018 at 11:22 AM Volker Simonis
>>> <volker.simonis at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On Thu, Nov 15, 2018 at 6:01 PM Philip Race <philip.race at oracle.com> wrote:
>>>>> PS I am not sure why xrandr headers would not be available for AIX.
>>>>> They are a standard part of the xdistribution.
>>>>>
>>>> I'm not an X11 guru, but as far as I understand, xrandr is an
>>>> extension and as such it doesn't have to be supported by every
>>>> implementation. To the best of my knowledge (I've just started another
>>>> poll among some experts) AIX doesn't support Xrandr and does not have
>>>> the corresponding headers.
>>>>
>>>>> If true, think what you are going to have to do is add a
>>>>> --with-xrandr-include option
>>>>> and provide it that way.
>>>>>
>>>> What if there are no standard Xrandr headers on a platform? Do you
>>>> really want to force users to get them from some dubious sources just
>>>> for building the OpenJDK? Sorry, but I don't think that's a good
>>>> solution. Than I'd rather prefer the ugly ifdefs (or I check the
>>>> headers back in again in an AIX-specific directory :)
>>>>
>>>> Thank you and best regards,
>>>> Volker
>>>>
>>>>> -phil.
>>>>>
>>>>> On 11/15/18, 8:55 AM, Philip Race wrote:
>>>>>> Hmm. I don't like the ifdefs.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Xrandr is a requirement for the build. If its not there at runtime
>>>>>> that's OK.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -phil.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 11/15/18, 8:06 AM, Volker Simonis wrote:
>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> can I please have a review for the following small change:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~simonis/webrevs/2018/8213944/
>>>>>>> https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8213944
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Change JDK-8210863 removed the Xrandr.h/randr.h headers from the
>>>>>>> OpenJDK sources but forgot to add a configure check for the Xrandr
>>>>>>> extension which is now a build dependency.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The change also broke the AIX build. AIX never supported Xrandr, but
>>>>>>> that was only detected at runtime, when the JDK was unable to
>>>>>>> dynamically load libXrand.so. Now, without Xrandr.h/randr.h in the
>>>>>>> source tree any more, we have to conditionally compile some parts of
>>>>>>> src/java.desktop/unix/native/libawt_xawt/awt/awt_GraphicsEnv.c such
>>>>>>> that it doesn't require the definitions and declarations from
>>>>>>> Xrandr.h/randr.h any more.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thank you and best regards,
>>>>>>> Volker



More information about the build-dev mailing list