I note that there are some notes on the OpenJDK website about running tests.
See here: http://openjdk.java.net/jtreg/#makefile
In particular, it includes this text:
When using these targets, it is recommended to set the following
variables, either as environment variables or on the "make" command line:
* |JT_HOME|: the jtreg installation directory
* |PRODUCT_HOME|: the JDK build to be tested: this is typically a
file path ending in /j2sdk-image/
If someone makes any changes such that this is no longer true, please
let me know so that I can update these notes.
-- Jon
On 10/25/2012 01:40 PM, Kelly O'Hair wrote:
This change is not right.
We should not use the name ALT_ anything in this makefile, it is an independent
Makefile.
For better or worse, it does not share the build make logic at all.
The names ALT_OUTPUTDIR and ABS_OUTPUTDIR could just be something like
TEST_OUTPUT_ROOT
or something without the ALT or OUTPUTDIR names.
If these var names were changed I'd be fine with this basic change. But at the
same time, there are also the test/Makefiles
in jdk, hotspot, and the root. I would think we should at least verify those
don't need the same change.
-kto
On Oct 25, 2012, at 4:42 AM, Magnus Ihse Bursie wrote:
There are several similarities between jdk/test/Makefile and langtools/test/Makefile.
This makes it possible to run tests from either one in build-infra (the new build system)
by using the target "test". In jdk/test/Makefile there is a test for an
external variable ALT_OUTPUTDIR, which directs where the test results should be stored.
The build-infra framework uses this to keep the test output in the corresponding build
directory.
However, while the code is very similar in langtools/test/Makefile, this exact
feature is not available. This results in langtools tests being hardcoded to
end up in a directory named as in the old build system.
Here is a rather trivial patch that will add the ALT_OUTPUTDIR functionality to
langtools as well.
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~ihse/support-build-infra-output-in-langtools-test/webrev.00/
I'm assuming someone in the langtools group should review this as well, and
that it probably should go in via the -tl forest. I couldn't figure out what
mailing list to reach the langtools group on though, so I'd appreaciate some
help with forwarding this to the right persons.
/Magnus
