I agree with Jon. SKIP_BOOT_CYCLE=false has been a useful and handy
test case (building JDK with the newly built JDK) to catch issues early
on. Such functionality makes it easy and convenient to do the skip
boot cycle build via JPRT or our automated nightly builds. FWIW - skip
boot cycle build has been especially useful for Jigsaw as there are
significant changes to the layout as well as the runtime and we do that
in our nightly builds.
Mandy
On 9/10/2012 8:09 AM, Jonathan Gibbons wrote:
Using SKIP_BOOT_CYCLE=false has often flushed out bugs, and I would be
concerned about its removal.
Is it really that hard to provide the same functionality in the new
build system? Surely, it should just be a matter of a couple of
recursive makes at the top-level, the first into an "interim" build
dir and the second using the result of the first as its ALT_BOOTDIR.
-- Jon
On 09/10/2012 04:43 AM, Magnus Ihse Bursie wrote:
In the old system, one can set the oddly named SKIP_BOOT_CYCLE to
false (which, internally, sets the slightly more clearly named
DO_BOOT_CYCLE=true). This causes the product to build twice, the
second time using the first build result as the boot jdk.
This has been used, as I understand it, as a "poor mans integration
test" -- if the build output could perform the feat of compiling the
JDK, then it can't be that broken.
This kind of behaviour is not implemented in the new build system,
and I propose that it should not be. The cost for implementing this
is that all build system for all builds will be more complicated, but
the gains are more unclear. To me, this is just a test, and it's a
bit odd to have that as part of the build system. I also believe are
now far better tests using jtreg, and if they are lacking -- then the
tests should be improved, not the build system changed.
Is there anyone who would be protesting if the SKIP_BOOT_CYCLE
functionality would be dropped in the new build system?
/Magnus
