Hello, please review
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~mbaesken/webrevs/8215296.0/ in my change just -xc99=%none is removed, so we do not forbid c99 coding. The -Xa compile flag is kept, no special additional settings are needed to compile png/awt . Thanks, Matthias > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2018 15:39:26 +0100 > From: Magnus Ihse Bursie <magnus.ihse.bur...@oracle.com> > To: Erik Joelsson <erik.joels...@oracle.com>, build-dev > <build-dev@openjdk.java.net>, "awt-...@openjdk.java.net" > <awt-...@openjdk.java.net>, 2d-dev <2d-...@openjdk.java.net> > Subject: Re: [OpenJDK 2D-Dev] RFR: JDK-8215296 do not disable c99 on > Solaris > Message-ID: <5874d10e-db2d-8681-a54b-a1eeb6e45...@oracle.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed > > > > On 2018-12-14 12:49, Magnus Ihse Bursie wrote: > > > > 13 dec. 2018 kl. 19:07 skrev Erik Joelsson <erik.joels...@oracle.com > > <mailto:erik.joels...@oracle.com>>: > > > >> > >> On 2018-12-13 02:11, Magnus Ihse Bursie wrote: > >>> > >>>> -D_XPG6 > >>>> > >>>> ?? > >>> To be honest, I'm not completely sure about this. Without this > >>> define, the build failed with the following error message: > >>> Compiler or options invalid for pre-UNIX 03 X/Open applications and > >>> pre-2001 POSIX applications > >>> > >>> This was triggered by the following section in > >>> /usr/include/sys/feature_tests.h: > >>> /* > >>> * It is invalid to compile an XPG3, XPG4, XPG4v2, or XPG5 application > >>> * using c99. The same is true for POSIX.1-1990, POSIX.2-1992, > >>> POSIX.1b, > >>> * and POSIX.1c applications. Likewise, it is invalid to compile an > >>> XPG6 > >>> * or a POSIX.1-2001 application with anything other than a c99 or > >>> later > >>> * compiler. Therefore, we force an error in both cases. > >>> */ > >>> #if defined(_STDC_C99) && (defined(__XOPEN_OR_POSIX) && > >>> !defined(_XPG6)) > >>> #error "Compiler or options invalid for pre-UNIX 03 X/Open > >>> applications \ > >>> and pre-2001 POSIX applications" > >>> #elif !defined(_STDC_C99) && \ > >>> (defined(__XOPEN_OR_POSIX) && defined(_XPG6)) > >>> #error "Compiler or options invalid; UNIX 03 and POSIX.1-2001 > >>> applications \ > >>> require the use of c99" > >>> #endif > >>> > >>> The solution, as also hinted to by searching for other resolutions > >>> to this error online, was to provide the _XPG6 system define. But > >>> exactly how we end up in feature_tests.h with __XOPEN_OR_POSIX set, > >>> without _XPG6 set, and only when compiling this library and not > >>> others, I don't know. I also don't understand what the XPG standard > >>> refers to, nor what versions 2-5 means or what version 6 has that > >>> differs from them. > >>> > >>> By setting this flag, I am telling solaris include headers that we > >>> want to compile using the XPG standard version 6, instead of an > >>> older one. It solves the problem. I am happy enough with this. Are you? > >>> > >> It looks like this comes from libpng. It has this in > >> src/java.desktop//share/native/libsplashscreen/libpng/pngpriv.h: > >> > >> /* Feature Test Macros. The following are defined here to ensure > >> that correctly > >> * implemented libraries reveal the APIs libpng needs to build and > >> hide those > >> * that are not needed and potentially damaging to the compilation. > >> * > >> * Feature Test Macros must be defined before any system header is > >> included (see > >> * POSIX 1003.1 2.8.2 "POSIX Symbols." > >> * > >> * These macros only have an effect if the operating system supports > >> either > >> * POSIX 1003.1 or C99, or both. On other operating systems > >> (particularly > >> * Windows/Visual Studio) there is no effect; the OS specific tests > >> below are > >> * still required (as of 2011-05-02.) > >> */ > >> #ifndef _POSIX_SOURCE > >> # define _POSIX_SOURCE 1 /* Just the POSIX 1003.1 and C89 APIs */ > >> #endif > >> > >> This in turn triggers _XOPEN_OR_POSIX to be defined in > >> /usr/include/sys/feature_tests.h and so triggers the error. > >> > >> What I'm not clear about is if libpng is trying to declare that it > >> should not be compiled with any newer standards, and so by doing > >> that, we risk introducing problems. Reading in the system header, it > >> seems the _XPG6 macro is internal and should not be used by the > >> application. It's derived from _XOPEN_SOURCE=600 or > >> _POSIX_C_SOURCE=200112L which is what applications should use. > > > > Interesting. We should probably define one, or both of these. Perhaps > > globally for all native files and compilers. It might have been the > > case that the solstudio compiler set _POSIX_C_SOURCE for us before, > > prior to setting -std=c99. The following stack overflow article claims > > that this is at least the behavior of gcc/clang: > > > > https://stackoverflow.com/questions/21867897/c89-and-posix-at-the- > same-time > > > > > > So we might have had an implicit _POSIX_C_SOURCE that we now miss. > > That would explain why this starts to fail. I'll see if I can confirm > > this the next time I log into a Solaris computer. > Of course it was not as simple. Setting: > ifeq ($(OPENJDK_TARGET_OS), solaris) > LIBSPLASHSCREEN_CFLAGS += -D_POSIX_C_SOURCE=200112L - > D_XOPEN_SOURCE=600 > endif > > instead made us fail with: > open/src/java.desktop/unix/native/libsplashscreen/splashscreen_sys.c", > line 143: error: incomplete struct/union/enum timezone: tz > > I don't have more time to dig into this now. Overall, changes such as > these make it all feel a bit scary; I recommend that any change to this > be made in JDK 13 and not 12. > > /Magnus > > > > Otoh, the same article claims, and it sounds reasonable, that we > > should set these variables ourself, to be well behaved and to minimize > > surprises. And I think this applies to all unix platforms, regardless > > of compiler being used. I'll see if I can kick off a test job with > > this to see how/if it influences other platforms. But it sounds like > > something we should do; the level of posix conformance should be > > controlled by us, not left to chance. We also need to verify, of > > course, that all platforms we want to support is capable of > > supporting _POSIX_C_SOURCE=200112L. I doubt there's a problem > though. > > Possibly on AIX... > > > > /Magnus > > > >> > >> So the the question is, is it ok to override the requirements of > >> libpng or should it receive special treatment? If we are fine with > >> overriding, then we should use one of the public APIs instead. > >> > >> /Erik > >> > >>> /Magnus > >>> > >>>> > >>>> Thanks, > >>>> David > >>>> > >>>> On 13/12/2018 7:02 am, Magnus Ihse Bursie wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> On 2018-12-12 20:08, Magnus Ihse Bursie wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> On 2018-12-12 19:12, Magnus Ihse Bursie wrote: > >>>>>>> From the bug report: > >>>>>>> "Currently we disable C99 in the Solaris build by setting > >>>>>>> -xc99=%none%. > >>>>>>> This differs from a lot of other build environments like > >>>>>>> gcc/Linux or VS2013/2017 on Windows where C99 features work. > >>>>>>> We should remove this difference on Solaris and remove or > >>>>>>> replace the setting. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Kim Barrett mentioned : > >>>>>>> "I merely mentioned the C++14 work as evidence that removing > >>>>>>> -xc99=%none% didn?t appear harmful." > >>>>>>> However it will take more time until the C++14 change is in." > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> I am currently running a test build on our CI build system to > >>>>>>> confirm that this does not break the Solaris build (but I'd be > >>>>>>> highly surprised if it did). I will not push this until the > >>>>>>> builds are cleared. > >>>>>> Of course it was not that simple... :-( Two AWT libraries (at > >>>>>> least) failed to build. I'm currently investigating if there's a > >>>>>> simple fix to that. > >>>>> New attempt, that fixes the two AWT libraries: > >>>>> WebRev: > >>>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~ihse/JDK-8215296-build-solstudio-with- > c99/webrev.01 > >>>>> <http://cr.openjdk.java.net/%7Eihse/JDK-8215296-build-solstudio- > with-c99/webrev.01> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> Now this passes the CI build test. > >>>>> > >>>>> /Magnus > >>>>>> > >>>>>> /Magnus > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> /Magnus > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8215296 > >>>>>>> Patch inline: > >>>>>>> diff --git a/make/autoconf/flags-cflags.m4 > >>>>>>> b/make/autoconf/flags-cflags.m4 > >>>>>>> --- a/make/autoconf/flags-cflags.m4 > >>>>>>> +++ b/make/autoconf/flags-cflags.m4 > >>>>>>> @@ -559,7 +559,7 @@ > >>>>>>> TOOLCHAIN_CFLAGS="-errshort=tags" > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> TOOLCHAIN_CFLAGS_JDK="-mt $TOOLCHAIN_FLAGS" > >>>>>>> - TOOLCHAIN_CFLAGS_JDK_CONLY="-xc99=%none -xCC -Xa -W0,- > noglobal > >>>>>>> $TOOLCHAIN_CFLAGS" # C only > >>>>>>> + TOOLCHAIN_CFLAGS_JDK_CONLY="-std=c99 -xCC -W0,-noglobal > >>>>>>> $TOOLCHAIN_CFLAGS" # C only > >>>>>>> TOOLCHAIN_CFLAGS_JDK_CXXONLY="-features=no%except - > norunpath > >>>>>>> -xnolib" # CXX only > >>>>>>> TOOLCHAIN_CFLAGS_JVM="-template=no%extdef - > features=no%split_init \ > >>>>>>> -library=stlport4 -mt -features=no%except > >>>>>>> $TOOLCHAIN_FLAGS" > >>>>>> > >>>>> > >>> >
