On Tue, 11 Aug 2026 23:01:26 GMT, Ashay Rane <[email protected]> wrote:

>> make/autoconf/build-performance.m4 line 306:
>> 
>>> 304:     if test "x$OPENJDK_BUILD_OS" = "xwindows"; then
>>> 305:       SCCACHE_DIR_FOR_SCCACHE=`$FIXPATH_BASE -m print 
>>> "$SCCACHE_DIR_FOR_SCCACHE"`
>>> 306:     fi
>> 
>> Please use `UTIL_FIXUP_PATH` to normalize file/directory paths.
>
> It looks like we can't use `UTIL_FIXUP_PATH`, since it first tests whether 
> the directory exists.  I made the following change:
> 
> 
> diff --git a/make/autoconf/build-performance.m4 
> b/make/autoconf/build-performance.m4
> index 76332e0b7f8..620f3b5a461 100644
> --- a/make/autoconf/build-performance.m4
> +++ b/make/autoconf/build-performance.m4
> @@ -300,11 +303,8 @@ AC_DEFUN([BPERF_SETUP_SCCACHE],
> 
>    if test "x$with_sccache_dir" != x; then
>      SCCACHE_DIR="$with_sccache_dir"
> -    SCCACHE_DIR_FOR_SCCACHE="$SCCACHE_DIR"
> -    if test "x$OPENJDK_BUILD_OS" = "xwindows"; then
> -      SCCACHE_DIR_FOR_SCCACHE=`$FIXPATH_BASE -m print 
> "$SCCACHE_DIR_FOR_SCCACHE"`
> -    fi
> -    SET_SCCACHE_DIR="SCCACHE_DIR=$SCCACHE_DIR_FOR_SCCACHE"
> +    UTIL_FIXUP_PATH(SCCACHE_DIR)
> +    SET_SCCACHE_DIR="SCCACHE_DIR=$SCCACHE_DIR"
>      if test "x$SCCACHE" = x; then
>        AC_MSG_WARN([--with-sccache-dir has no meaning when sccache is not 
> enabled])
>      fi
> 
> 
> 
> but the build fails if the specified directory does not exist:
> 
> 
> checking if sccache is available... yes
> checking if sccache is enabled... enabled, from command line
> configure: The path of SCCACHE_DIR, which is given as "/tmp/x", can not be 
> properly resolved.
> configure: Please see the section "Special Considerations" in building.md.
> configure: This is the error message given by fixpath:
> fixpath: warning: Path '/tmp/x' does not exist
> /tmp/x
> configure: error: Cannot continue
> configure exiting with result code 1

Ok, then keep the current solution, but add a comment explaining why 
UTIL_FIXUP_PATH isn't used.

-------------

PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/32059#discussion_r3766917167

Reply via email to