The fix is to execute "bash common/autoconf/autogen.sh" locally and then resubmit to jprt. You need to have autoconf version 2.67 or newer installed for it to work.
/Erik On 2013-07-02 05:48, Vladimir Kozlov wrote:
Need help from JDK build experts. I applied next 2 changesets: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~simonis/webrevs/8017568_toplevel/ http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~simonis/webrevs/8017568_jdk/ and got JPRT build problems (-control build) only on MacOS and Win64:http://bus2001067.us.oracle.com/archives/2013/06/2013-06-28-213927.vkozlov.ppc64_jdk_build_test/------------------------------------------------------------------------------macosx_x64_10.7-product (details from log file) ...Warning: The generated configure file contains changes not present in the custom generated file.Running autogen.sh to correct the situation Autoconf found: /usr/bin/autoconf Autoconf-2.67 found: Generating generated-configure.sh with /usr/bin/autoconf /usr/bin/gm4:stdin:187: bad expression in eval: 32 > <dynamic> autom4te: /usr/bin/gm4 failed with exit status: 1 Generating custom generated-configure.sh /usr/bin/gm4:stdin:187: bad expression in eval: 32 > <dynamic> autom4te: /usr/bin/gm4 failed with exit status: 1------------------------------------------------------------------------------windows_x64_5.2-fastdebug (details from log file) ...Warning: The generated configure file contains changes not present in the custom generated file.Error: Cannot continue Cannot locate autoconf, unable to correct situation.Please install autoconf and run 'bash autogen.sh' to update the generated files.make: *** [bridge2configure] Error 1------------------------------------------------------------------------------Without these changes the output is: Running custom generated-configure.sh configure: Configuration created at Thu Jun 27 16:32:25 EDT 2013. configure: configure script generated at timestamp 1371547939. Thanks, Vladimir On 6/28/13 12:04 AM, Volker Simonis wrote:Ok, that's fine. Could you please let me know when you've verified these changes. I will then push them to the staging repository. Regards, Volker On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 7:35 PM, Vladimir Kozlov <[email protected]> wrote:On 6/27/13 10:16 AM, Iris Clark wrote:Hi, Volker.I think that the right thing for this change [1] is for you to push into ppc-aix-port/stage once you get the necessary reviews (presumably Erik and possibly Alan). While your changeset contains some general purpose updates,it also contains PPC/AIX-specific files which can't be added to a JDK release repository until stage is pushed into the a JDK release. The recommendation to push to stage of course assumes that Vladimirdoesn't think that this will adversely affect the Hotspot work already beingpushed to stage.This should not affect Hotspot in stage repo. Me or Albert will do JPRT bootstrap control build of jdk with this changes to make sure it works. After that Volker can push it into stage. When I talked about pushing *general* changes into main sources I meantchanges with no ppc64 specific code. The example of such changes was recent Goetz's fix for '8017531: 8010460 changes broke bytecodeInterpreter.cpp'.Thanks, VladimirThanks, iris [1]: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~simonis/webrevs/8017568_jdk/ -----Original Message----- From: Volker Simonis [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, June 27, 2013 9:23 AM To: Erik JoelssonCc: Kumar Srinivasan; build-dev; [email protected]; AlanBateman Subject: Re: RFR (XS): Enable new build on Linux/PPC64 (jdk part) Hi Erik,we have no polices which are carved in stone:) It's all done informallyand by common sense.The main reason for the ppc-aix-port/stage repository is to have a sandbox for in-depth review and testing of changes we had to make in shared code before pushing them to the main repository (and this especially applies to hotspot changes). If you feel comfortable with the current changes and don't think that they will break anything (e.g. by running tests build on your supported platforms including the closed source ones) I'd really appreciateif you could push them to the build repository. Otherwise I'll push them to the staging repository and you'll get them once we're finished with the integration of the port. Thank you and best regards, VolkerOn Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 1:51 PM, Erik Joelsson <[email protected]>wrote:On 2013-06-27 13:00, Volker Simonis wrote: On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 12:16 PM, Erik Joelsson <[email protected]> wrote:Hello Volker, I wasn't aware of this project until now. From what I (now)understand, generic patches can go into jdk8 repos, but port specificthings need to go to staging and go in with the rest later. These changes contain a couple of port specific things so as it looks now they would need to go through staging.Yes, that's the general approach. But I'd argue that for the most partthis changes are generic (enable CPP-interpreter, enable CORE build, fix for broken ld on SuSE, replacing OPENWIN_LIB by X_LIB, fix typos)with only very few PPC64 specific parts (map-files and a few defines).The problem we want to avoid is that some of our fixes go into the main repositories in parallel which would result in merging pain when integrating the staging into the main repository.So if you think you don't need any of the general fixes any time soon,I'll push the changes into the staging repository. Otherwise I think it would be better to push them right into the main repositories. Several of the general fixes in there are good and I don't want to hinder those getting in. I also don't want to break policies I'm not familiar with. /Erik Thanks, Volker/Erik On 2013-06-27 12:03, Volker Simonis wrote: Hi Erik, as Vladimir explained, we have a special staging repository for our PPC64/AIX port: I would be happy if you could push the changes right into the build-infra repositories and we will then get them into our staging repository via jdk8/jdk8. Otherwise I'll have to push them to our staging repository and later when the whole port is completed in the staging repo they will be bulk-integrated into jdk8. What do you think? Regards, Volker On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 6:53 PM, Vladimir Kozlov <[email protected]> wrote:Erik, We have special staging forest for PPC64/AIX port: http://hg.openjdk.java.net/ppc-aix-port/stage We collect Hotspot and JDK changes there for testing before pushing into main sources in a future. But some general fixes we push directly into our main sources. If you think these build changes are acceptable for main, please, ask someone sponsor these changes. Alan is our official contact for PPC64/AIX project. I CC him. Thanks, Vladimir On 6/26/13 8:56 AM, Erik Joelsson wrote:Hello, If you by staging area mean the build-infra forest, that's more or less dead now. I think these changes look good now (both top level and jdk). It should be fine to push this to jdk8/build. /Erik On 2013-06-26 17:28, Volker Simonis wrote:Hi Erik, thank you for looking at this. I've prepared a new webrev at: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~simonis/webrevs/8017568_jdk/ <http://cr.openjdk.java.net/%7Esimonis/webrevs/8017568_jdk/> What do you think, do you want to push this directly into thebuild repositories or should I push it into the staging repositoryfirst? Please see my further comments inline. Thank you and best regards, Volker On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 12:41 PM, Erik Joelsson<[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:On 2013-06-25 12:27, Erik Joelsson wrote: Hello Volker, On 2013-06-24 19:23, Volker Simonis wrote: Hi,could somebody please review the following change andcreate an appropriate Bug ID for it: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~simonis/webrevs/linux_ppc_build_jdk/<http://cr.openjdk.java.net/%7Esimonis/webrevs/linux_ppc_build_jdk/>The patch contains two little changes which are requiredto build the classlibrary part of the OpenJDK on Linux/PPC64. Most of thebuild magic iscontained in the top-level part of this change which isseparately reviewed at http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~simonis/webrevs/linux_ppc_build_top<http://cr.openjdk.java.net/%7Esimonis/webrevs/linux_ppc_build_topCompileLaunchers.gmk Remove mapfile from build instructions of BUILD_UNPACKEXE: CFLAGS_macosx:=-fPIC, \ -MAPFILE:=$(JDK_TOPDIR)/makefiles/mapfiles/libunpack/mapfile-vers-unpack200,\LDFLAGS:=$(UNPACKEXE_ZIPOBJS),\I think it makes no sense to use a version script filefor an executable and older linkers (e.g. on SLES 10) complain with: "*Invalid version tag`SUNWprivate_1.1'. Only anonymous version tag is allowedin executable.*" The GNU ldmanual<http://ftp.gnu.org/old-gnu/Manuals/ld-2.9.1/html_node/ld_25.html>states:"*Version scripts are only meaningful when creating shared libraries.*"Morover unpack200 was the only executable which used aversion script file.Unpackexe has some weirdness and this isn't surprising me. Would be good if someone with more historic knowledge couldfill in on the reason for this. Someone apparently wentthrough the trouble of creating a special mapfile for this executable. Also, if not using it, should it be removed?I looked closer at this. These mapfiles were explicitly added in http://bugs.sun.com/view_bug.do?bug_id=7033954, but it was noted that it broke builds for architectures that didn't have mapfiles defined. If you look at the launchers, the mapfile is only setifthe arch specific one exists. I think a safer change here wouldbe to make the mapfile conditional on platform or arch for unpackexe. I still do not fully understand why we need map-files forexecutables, but I also understand that you don't want to change thecurrent setup. So I went the hard (and hopefully right:) way and implemented adetection of the buggy linkers on older SuSE distros (e.g. on SLES10) which complain with: "Invalid version tag `SUNWprivate_1.1'during the configure step (see top-level change). Unfortunately westill have quite a lot of these systems so we really need the build with that buggy ld. I've therefore added map files with anonymous version tags for these buggy linkers which are only used if the buggy linker was detected during the configure step (i.e. if USING_BROKEN_SUSE_LD=yes). Notice that this is no PPC64 specific problem but a occurs on all SuSE 10 platforms. And you've been right. I also had to add the arch specific map files for ppc64 in order to use them for the other launchers. Kumar, you made the change referred to here, do you have anything to add? /Erik Fix typo (replace 'defalt: all' by 'default') default: all CompileNativeLibraries.gmkOnly use $(OPENWIN_LIB) for linking LIBSPLASHSCREEN onSolaris! The oldcode worked only accidentally when the X-libraries arein the default linker path anyway. The right solution is to use $(X_LIBS) if not on Windows or Solaris.Append -DX_ARCH=X_PPC64 to LIBJSOUND_CFLAGS on PPC64.The value ofX_ARCHisn't actually used on the PPC architectures, butthere's a check to verify that it is set. Fix typo (replace 'defalt: all' by 'default') default: all Otherwise looks good. /Erik
