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

Volker Simonis volker.simonis at gmail.com
Tue Nov 27 10:16:10 UTC 2018


Hi Phil,

sorry I didn't wanted to overrule you but after I didn't heard back
from you for almost a week (an out of office mail could have been
helpful) and after I got 5 other reviews I decided to finally fix the
build error on AIX.

On Mon, Nov 26, 2018 at 9:35 PM Phil Race <philip.race at oracle.com> wrote:
>
> Well .. I see this was pushed whilst I was on vacation.
> I would not have voted for the fix in its current form. The
> "HAVE_XRANDR" would
> have been  less bad. If (say) HPUX has the same issue you
> haven't really helped them with an AIX specific change in the source file.
> It would have been better to confine all of that decision making to the
> make files.
>
> Can we re-do this ? And since it'll be less urgent the follow up can be
> pushed to jdk/client.
>

Sure, I have opened "8214343: Handle the absence of Xrandr more
generically" [1] for it. I'll send out a RFR soon.

[1] https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8214343

> But I really don't get why AIX doesn't have XRANDR.
> I understood that it might not have GDK - which is why - you may remember -
> we checked into that when looking at options for the Robot imported sources
> and deferred that, but XRANDR ??? I think this is an AIX "bug" which should
> be reported to IBM.
>

I have reported it, but in the end AIX, HP-UX, Solaris, etc. are all
zombie operating systems :(

> -phil.
>
>
> On 11/20/18 10:13 AM, 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'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?
> >
> > [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