On 29/07/2019 19:30, Aleksey Shipilev wrote:
> On 7/29/19 7:37 PM, Severin Gehwolf wrote:
>> So, in light of the changed build system in JDK 9+, and the rather
>> small changes in this patch (on the grand scheme of things), it seems
>> reasonable to implement this feature in the way proposed. It's a JDK 8u
>> *enhancement* after all.
> 
> I am with Severin here. The lack of acceptance test profile in 8u is severely 
> impeding 8u
> backporting work. I personally keep Severin's patches applied at all times in 
> my local patch queue,
> because that is the only way I can have 8u coverage more or less similar to 
> what I do for 11u backports.
> 
> Langtools build changes do not look bad, and they are pretty isolated from 
> the rest of build system,
> which means we are not risking regressing important stuff.
I agree that this is needed. I also understand why Andrew is loath to
see changes that are not upstream. However, in this case I don't think
we can avoid adding changes that cause a difference from upstream.

The upstream test make system is implemented very differently, as
Severin explained. He actually omitted mention of one important detail.
>From jdk9 onwards it is organised in one tree rather than separate
subtrees. IN consequence the code Severin is replicating in the jdk8u
langtools/test make file does actually exist in upstream jdk11u but it
is in a /shared/ file (test/make/TestCommon.gmk). For what loosk liek a
very weird reason this shared file is not directly included in the
langtools/test make file (langtools seems to expect the test process to
pirate on the jdk test make process using a different path to the test
files). Anyway, it is clear that this sharing (or, indeed, pirating on
the jdk make process) is not an option in jdk8u because the make
processes run in separate trees. So, replicating the shared code seems
to be the only option.

regards,


Andrew Dinn
-----------
Senior Principal Software Engineer
Red Hat UK Ltd
Registered in England and Wales under Company Registration No. 03798903
Directors: Michael Cunningham, Michael ("Mike") O'Neill, Eric Shander

Reply via email to