Hi David,
On 2017-06-02 03:30, David Holmes wrote:
Hi Erik,
On 2/06/2017 12:50 AM, Erik Österlund wrote:
Hi David,
On 2017-06-01 14:33, David Holmes wrote:
Hi Erik,
Just to be clear it is not the use of <limits> that I am concerned
about, it is the -library=stlport4. It is the use of that flag that
I would want to check in terms of having no affect on any existing
code generation.
Thank you for the clarification. The use of -library=stlport4 should
not have anything to do with code generation. It only says where to
look for the standard library headers such as <limits> that are used
in the compilation units.
The potential problem is that the stlport4 include path eg:
./SS12u4/lib/compilers/include/CC/stlport4/
doesn't only contain the C++ headers (new, limits, string etc) but
also a whole bunch of regular 'standard' .h headers that are
_different_ to those found outside the stlport4 directory ie the ones
we would currently include. I don't know if the differences are
significant, nor whether those others may be found ahead of the
stlport4 version. But that is my concern about the effects on the code.
While I do not think exchanging these headers will have any behavioral
impact, I agree that we can not prove so as they are indeed different
header files. That is a good point.
However, I think that makes the stlport4 case stronger rather than
weaker. We already use stlport4 for our gtest testing (because it is
required and does not build without it). And if those headers would
indeed have slightly different behaviour as you imply, it further
motivates using the same standard library when compiling the product as
the testing code. If they were to behave slightly differently, it might
be that our gtest tests does not catch hidden bugs that only manifest
when building with a different set of headers used for the product
build. I therefore find it exceedingly dangerous to stay on two standard
libraries (depending on if test code or product code is compiled)
compared to consistently using the same standard library across all
compilations. So for me, the larger the risk is of them behaving
differently is, the bigger the motivation is to use stlport4 consistently.
Thanks,
/Erik
Thanks,
David
-----
Specifically, the man pages for CC say:
<man>
-library=lib[,lib...]
Incorporates specified CC-provided libraries into
compilation and
linking.
When the -library option is used to specify a CC-provided
library,
the proper -I paths are set during compilation and the
proper -L,
-Y, -P, and -R paths and -l options are set during linking.
</man>
As we are setting this during compilation and not during linking,
this corresponds to setting the right -I paths to find our C++
standard library headers.
My studio friends mentioned I could double-check that we did indeed
not add a dependency to any C++ standard library by running elfdump
on the generated libjvm.so file and check if the NEEDED entries in
the dynamic section look right. I did and here are the results:
[0] NEEDED 0x2918ee libsocket.so.1
[1] NEEDED 0x2918fd libsched.so.1
[2] NEEDED 0x29190b libdl.so.1
[3] NEEDED 0x291916 libm.so.1
[4] NEEDED 0x291920 libCrun.so.1
[5] NEEDED 0x29192d libthread.so.1
[6] NEEDED 0x29193c libdoor.so.1
[7] NEEDED 0x291949 libc.so.1
[8] NEEDED 0x291953 libdemangle.so.1
[9] NEEDED 0x291964 libnsl.so.1
[10] NEEDED 0x291970 libkstat.so.1
[11] NEEDED 0x29197e librt.so.1
This list does not include any C++ standard libraries, as expected
(libCrun is always in there even with -library=%none, and as expected
no libstlport4.so or libCstd.so files are in there). The NEEDED
entries in the dynamic section look identical with and without my patch.
I'm finding the actual build situation very confusing. It seems to
me in looking at the hotspot build files and the top-level build
files that -xnolib is used for C++ compilation & linking whereas
-library=%none is used for C compilation & linking. But the change
is being applied to $2JVM_CFLAGS which one would think is for C
compilation but we don't have $2JVM_CXXFLAGS, so it seems to be used
for both!
I have also been confused by this when I tried adding CXX flags
through configure that seemed to not be used. But that's a different
can of worms I suppose.
Thanks,
/Erik
David
On 1/06/2017 7:36 PM, Erik Österlund wrote:
Hi David,
On 2017-06-01 08:09, David Holmes wrote:
Hi Kim,
On 1/06/2017 3:51 PM, Kim Barrett wrote:
On May 31, 2017, at 9:22 PM, David Holmes
<david.hol...@oracle.com> wrote:
Hi Erik,
A small change with big questions :)
On 31/05/2017 11:45 PM, Erik Österlund wrote:
Hi,
It would be desirable to be able to use harmless C++ standard
library headers like <limits> in the code as long as it does
not add any link-time dependencies to the standard library.
What does a 'harmless' C++ standard library header look like?
Header-only (doesn't require linking), doesn't run afoul of our
[vm]assert macro, and provides functionality we presently lack (or
only handle poorly) and would not be easy to reproduce.
And how does one establish those properties exist for a given
header file? Just use it and if no link errors then all is good?
Objects from headers that are not ODR-used such as constant folded
expressions are not imposing link-time dependencies to C++
libraries. The -xnolib that we already have in the LDFLAGS will
catch any accidental ODR-uses of C++ objects, and the JVM will not
build if that happens.
As for external headers being included and not playing nicely with
macros, this has to be evaluated on a case by case basis. Note that
this is a problem that occurs when using system headers (that we
are already using), as it is for using C++ standard library
headers. We even run into that in our own JVM when e.g. the min/max
macros occasionally slaps us gently in the face from time to time.
The instigator for this is Erik and I are working on a project that
needs information that is present in std::numeric_limits<> (provided
by the <limits> header). Reproducing that functionality ourselves
would require platform-specific code (with all the complexity
that can
imply). We'd really rather not re-discover and maintain information
that is trivially accessible in every standard library.
Understood. I have no issue with using <limits> but am concerned
by the state of stlport4. Can you use <limits> without changing
-library=%none?
No, that is precisely why we are here.
This is possible on all supported platforms except the ones
using the solaris studio compiler where we enforce
-library=%none in both CFLAGS and LDFLAGS.
I propose to remove the restriction from CFLAGS but keep it on
LDFLAGS.
I have consulted with the studio folks, and they think this is
absolutely fine and thought that the choice of
-library=stlport4 should be fine for our CFLAGS and is indeed
what is already used in the gtest launcher.
So what exactly does this mean? IIUC this allows you to use
headers for, and compile against "STLport’s Standard Library
implementation version 4.5.3 instead of the default libCstd".
But how do you then not need to link against libstlport.so ??
https://docs.oracle.com/cd/E19205-01/819-5267/bkakg/index.html
"STLport is binary incompatible with the default libCstd. If you
use the STLport implementation of the standard library, then you
must compile and link all files, including third-party
libraries, with the option -library=stlport4”
It means we can only use header-only parts of the standard library.
This was confirmed / suggested by the Studio folks Erik consulted,
providing such limited access while continuing to constrain our
dependency on the library. Figuring out what can be used will
need to
be determined on a case-by-case basis. Maybe we could just link
with
a standard library on Solaris too. So far as I can tell, Solaris is
the only platform where we don't do that. But Erik is trying to be
conservative.
Okay, but the docs don't seem to acknowledge the ability to use,
but not link to, stlport4.
Not ODR-used objects do not require linkage.
(http://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/language/definition)
I have confirmed directly with the studio folks to be certain that
accidental linkage would fail by keeping our existing guards in the
LDFLAGS rather than the CFLAGS.
This is also reasonably well documented already
(https://docs.oracle.com/cd/E19205-01/819-5267/bkbeq/index.html).
There are lots of other comments in that document regarding
STLport that makes me think that using it may be introducing a
fragile dependency into the OpenJDK code!
"STLport is an open source product and does not guarantee
compatibility across different releases. In other words,
compiling with a future version of STLport may break
applications compiled with STLport 4.5.3. It also might not be
possible to link binaries compiled using STLport 4.5.3 with
binaries compiled using a future version of STLport."
"Future releases of the compiler might not include STLport4.
They might include only a later version of STLport. The compiler
option -library=stlport4 might not be available in future
releases, but could be replaced by an option referring to a
later STLport version."
None of that sounds very good to me.
I don't see how this is any different from any other part of the
process for using a different version of Solaris Studio.
Well we'd discover the problem when testing the compiler change,
but my point was more to the fact that they don't seem very
committed to this library - very much a "use at own risk" disclaimer.
If we eventually need to use something more modern for features
that have not been around for a decade, like C++11 features, then
we can change standard library when that day comes.
stlport4 is one of the three standard libraries that are presently
included with Solaris Studio (libCstd, stlport4, gcc). Erik asked
the
Studio folks which to use (for the purposes of our present
project, we
don't have any particular preference, so long as it works), and
stlport4 seemed the right choice (libCstd was, I think, described as
"ancient"). Perhaps more importantly, we already use stlport4,
including linking against it, for gtest builds. Mixing two
different
standard libraries seems like a bad idea...
So we have the choice of "ancient", "unsupported" or gcc :)
My confidence in this has not increased :)
I trust that e.g. std::numeric_limits<T>::is_signed in the standard
libraries has more mileage than whatever simplified rewrite of that
we try to replicate in the JVM. So it is not obvious to me that we
should have less confidence in the same functionality from a
standard library shipped together with the compiler we are using
and that has already been used and tested in a variety of C++
applications for over a decade compared to the alternative of
reinventing it ourselves.
What we do in gtest doesn't necessarily make things okay to do in
the product.
If this were part of a compiler upgrade process we'd be comparing
binaries with old flag and new to ensure there are no unexpected
consequences.
I would not compare including <limits> to a compiler upgrade
process as we are not changing the compiler and hence not the way
code is generated, but rather compare it to including a new system
header that has previously not been included to use a constant
folded expression from that header that has been used and tested
for a decade. At least that is how I think of it.
Thanks,
/Erik
Cheers,
David
Cheers,
David
Webrev for jdk10-hs top level repository:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~eosterlund/8181318/webrev.00/
Webrev for jdk10-hs hotspot repository:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~eosterlund/8181318/webrev.01/
Testing: JPRT.
Will need a sponsor.
Thanks,
/Erik
