Hi Magnus,
There may be a further wart here to resolve. From the "bump the
classfile version to 54" thread on jdk-dev:
---
>>>> Don't you also need to update:
>>>>
>>>> jdk/src/java.base/share/native/include/classfile_constants.h
>>>>
>>>> #define JVM_CLASSFILE_MAJOR_VERSION 53
>>>>
>>> I cannot find any usages for this constant, nor
JVM_CLASSFILE_MINOR_VERSION. I will remove them.
>>
>> Okay. I don't know the history or use of this file, other than it
gets included into jvm.h to export the jvm interface to the jdk.
>>
>
And classfile_constants.h is also distributed with the image. I am
unsure of the intent/history. To play it safe i will just bump the
number.
Hmmm - that seems wrong. jvm.h is not an exported external interface
AFAIK. And we just moved it so I don't think it will get distributed any
more. Hmm that also suggests that classfile_constants.h may be in the
wrong place ... I'll take this up elsewhere.
---
So is classfile_constants.h also in the wrong place? And should it be in
the image ??
David
On 5/12/2017 6:40 AM, Magnus Ihse Bursie wrote:
On 2017-12-04 19:17, mandy chung wrote:
On 12/4/17 9:33 AM, Erik Joelsson wrote:
Hello Magnus,
The <module>-copy targets are currently only being generated for
modules that have make/copy/Copy-<module>.gmk makefiles present. By
removing make/copy/Copy-jdk.accessibility.gmk and
make/copy/Copy-jdk.jdwp.agent.gmk, those targets are no longer
created so the logic in CopyCommon will not be executed.
This can be solved in two ways. Either generate <module>-copy rules
for all modules or leave the files there with just include
CopyCommon.gmk as the only contents. I would recommend the latter for
now. Most modules do not need to copy anything.
Is it possible to generate <module>-copy rules for module where
src/<module>/{share, $OS}/include directory or
make/copy/Copy-<module>.gmk is present?
Technically, it's of course possible. But it does not fit very well with
the current DeclareRecipesForPhase. I agree with Erik, that for now the
reasonable approach is to have files that only include CopyCommon. We
can consider for future updates if it's worth generalizing this.
Updated webrev that restores the removed Copy-$MODULE.gmk files:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~ihse/JDK-8190484-move-hotspot-exported-includes/webrev.02
Another minor note, when ordering include directories, I usually put
the most specific dir first, so that any platform specific header
file with the same name would override a more general one. We don't
have that situation in this case, but I still think it's good practice.
Regarding where to push this. IMO, if it depends on a change
currently in hs, push it to hs. If it ends up in JDK 10 or 11 doesn't
really matter that much.
I would love this in JDK 10 if time permits and I am happy to see
Coleen retarget it to 10. This is a really nice clean up that shows
the benefit from JEP 201 w.r.t. exported native header files. But
this is not a must for JDK 10 and if it can't make 10, it's okay for 11.
Ok. I'll try to get it into jdk 10. Will push this to jdk/jdk as soon as
the needed fixes are integrated from jdk/hs.
/Magnus
Mandy
/Erik
On 2017-12-04 03:06, Magnus Ihse Bursie wrote:
JDK-8190484 was created as a follow-up bug to the unification of the
duplicated jvm.h, jvm_md.h and jmm.h, to determine the proper
location of these files. This has now been decided to be
hotspot/share/include and hotspot/os/$OS/include, respectively.
This patch moves the relevant files there, but since this also frees
up the src/$MODULE/native/include directories for the original
purpose, it also unifies and simplifies the build logic for these
directories, so that common code is executed for all modules to just
copy any exported header files from these directories, should they
exist.
I'm intending to push this to jdk-hs.
Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8190484
WebRev:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~ihse/JDK-8190484-move-hotspot-exported-includes/webrev.01
/Magnus
