On Thu, 8 Sep 2022 13:54:02 GMT, Erik Joelsson <er...@openjdk.org> wrote:
>> I looked up what kind of dependencies we are passing in through `DEPEND`. >> None, it turns out. It is not used. So that is not a worry. We might >> consider removing it. Sending in exceptional dependencies like that is never >> a good design decision. If it ever happens again that this would be the only >> acceptable solution, we can re-add the `DEPEND` argument. >> >> But that basically mean that Jan's patch might be okay, after all. `DEPENDS` >> does not exist, and I want to remove it. `EXTRA_DEPS` is only modified if we >> change the `depend` javac plugin. I am willing to sacrifice automatic >> recompilation of all Java classes if that is changed. > > Ok I was wrong about what EXTRA_DEPS was used for, I read the code too > hastily. However, the dependency declaration for the pubapi files from other > modules is added in make/CompileJavaModules.gmk like this: > > > $($(MODULE)_COMPILE_TARGET): $(foreach d, $(call FindDepsForModule, > $(MODULE)), \ > $(call SetupJavaCompilationApiTarget, $d, \ > $(if $($d_BIN), $($d_BIN), $(JDK_OUTPUTDIR)/modules/$d))) > > > So this still doesn't change my main point. The pubapi files only appear on > the dependency declaration for `$($(MODULE)_COMPILE_TARGET)`. This means that > with the current patch, we will not recompile the full module when a parent > module has a change to the pubapi. The Depend plugin needs to see the pubapi > files in `$$?` for that to happen. > > One could also make the case for using DEPEND when adding such a dependency > instead of referencing `$($(MODULE)_COMPILE_TARGET)` in explicit rules. It > would be more inline with more recent design patterns. Hmm, how about this? https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/pull/10104/commits/c3455660310bea8a33b1b5b5cb05c792f5d825a2 that seems to work (hopefully), although I am not sure if that is not breaking some overall concept in the build. ------------- PR: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/10104
