Kelly,

The JPRT job testing the latest HSX-24 version has finished and I
have identical test results to the original version of this fix.
The JPRT job testing the latest HSX-23.2 version is still running,
but so far there are no issues.

Could you let me know if this latest version resolves your
code review comments?

Dan



On 6/20/12 11:02 AM, Daniel D. Daugherty wrote:


On 6/20/12 10:44 AM, Daniel D. Daugherty wrote:
On 6/20/12 10:41 AM, Kelly O'Hair wrote:
You still have repeated patterns like:
  131         ( set -e ; \
  132           cd $(XLIBJVM_DIR) ; \
133 $(ADD_GNU_DEBUGLINK) $(LIBJVM_DB_DEBUGINFO) $(LIBJVM_DB) ; \
  134         )
When
131 ( cd $(XLIBJVM_DIR)&& $(ADD_GNU_DEBUGLINK) $(LIBJVM_DB_DEBUGINFO) $(LIBJVM_DB) )
does the same thing and is more obvious, no need for the set -e

Yes, that's because I didn't hear back from you after my reply from
late last night. The "set -e" is there because you asked me to add
it in a previous FDS fix.

I'll switch it.

Fixed. See the following:

http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~dcubed/fds_revamp/7175255-webrev/2/

Only make/solaris/makefiles/dtrace.make has changed in this round...

Dan



Dan


-kto

On Jun 20, 2012, at 9:23 AM, Daniel D. Daugherty wrote:

Greetings,

I've updated the fix to (hopefully) address Kelly's and David H's
concerns. Here is the URL for code review round 1:

http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~dcubed/fds_revamp/7175255-webrev/1/

Brief summary of changes relative to code review round 0:

- removed definition of GENERATED from both add_gnu_debuglink.make
  and fix_empty_sec_hdr_flags.make; this will decouple these work
  around Makefiles from the regular HotSpot Makefiles that define
  the GENERATED macro. No, I'm not cleaning up that mess. :-)
- add new "XLIBJVM_DIR = 64" variable and change all uses of a
  literal "64" in dtrace.make to the new variable
- drop uses of $(QUIETLY) in sub-shell constructs; I don't think
  $(QUIETLY) works in sub-shells anyway, but my memory is fuzzy
  there

Test JPRT jobs for HSX-24 and HSX-23.2 are in flight right now.

Thanks, in advance, for any reviews!

Dan


On 6/19/12 7:21 PM, Daniel D. Daugherty wrote:
Greetings,

This is an URGENT code review request for a Solaris specific Full Debug Symbols (FDS) fix. Due to a Makefile logic error, the full debug symbol files and related '_g' symlinks are created in the wrong sub-directory for a couple of the dtrace libraries. The incorrect paths have a double
"64/" sub-directory, e.g.:

solaris-<arch>/jre/lib/<arch>/client/64/64/libjvm_db.debuginfo

These are the correct symlink paths:

solaris-<arch>/fastdebug/jre/lib/<arch>/client/64/libjvm_g_db.debuginfo solaris-<arch>/fastdebug/jre/lib/<arch>/client/64/libjvm_g_dtrace.debuginfo solaris-<arch>/fastdebug/jre/lib/<arch>/server/64/libjvm_g_db.debuginfo solaris-<arch>/fastdebug/jre/lib/<arch>/server/64/libjvm_g_dtrace.debuginfo

and these are the correct debug info file paths:

    solaris-<arch>/jre/lib/<arch>/client/64/libjvm_db.debuginfo
    solaris-<arch>/jre/lib/<arch>/client/64/libjvm_dtrace.debuginfo
    solaris-<arch>/jre/lib/<arch>/server/64/libjvm_db.debuginfo
    solaris-<arch>/jre/lib/<arch>/server/64/libjvm_dtrace.debuginfo
solaris-<arch>/fastdebug/jre/lib/<arch>/client/64/libjvm_db.debuginfo solaris-<arch>/fastdebug/jre/lib/<arch>/client/64/libjvm_dtrace.debuginfo solaris-<arch>/fastdebug/jre/lib/<arch>/server/64/libjvm_db.debuginfo solaris-<arch>/fastdebug/jre/lib/<arch>/server/64/libjvm_dtrace.debuginfo

where "<arch>" is "i586" or "sparc". The 64-bit Solaris platforms ("amd64" and "sparcv9") don't have this issue because they don't have the "64/"
sub-directories.

This fix is targeted at HSX-24/JDK8 and HSX-23.2/JDK7u6 and will resolve
an issue that is preventing Oracle's Release Engineering scripts from
running properly.

Here is the webrev URL for the HSX-24/JDK8 version:

http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~dcubed/fds_revamp/7175255-webrev/0/

The HSX23.3/JDK7u6 version is the same except for the changes to
make/solaris/makefiles/defs.make which are not needed in HSX23.2.

Thanks, in advance, for any reviews!

Dan



Reply via email to