Hello Volker,
Building without a -bootclasspath results in the following warning which
is likely why it was added in the first place:
warning: [options] bootstrap class path not set in conjunction with
-source 1.7
Note that we are using the bootstrap javac, so it's not the one bundled
with the bootjdk. Bootstrap javac wants to generate jdk8 classes by default.
When using an OracleJDK as boot, tools.jar needs to be on the classpath
when building BUILD_BOOTSTRAP_CORBA. I put BOOT_TOOLSJAR there, but
that's actually incorrect. I should have put the bootstrap javac jar
instead. And it doesn't need to be on the bootclasspath, just -classpath.
I tried building without -bootclasspath in corba, but it generates a big
chunk of warnings:
/localhome/hg/jdk8-tl/corba/src/share/classes/com/sun/corba/se/spi/orb/ORB.java:100:
warning: AppContext is internal proprietary API and may be removed in a
future release
import sun.awt.AppContext;
^
/localhome/hg/jdk8-tl/corba/src/share/classes/sun/corba/Bridge.java:39:
warning: Unsafe is internal proprietary API and may be removed in a
future release
import sun.misc.Unsafe ;
^
/localhome/hg/jdk8-tl/corba/src/share/classes/sun/corba/Bridge.java:40:
warning: ReflectionFactory is internal proprietary API and may be
removed in a future release
import sun.reflect.ReflectionFactory ;
I don't know why these aren't showing otherwise.
Could we figure out a more general way of expressing a proper
bootclasspath that works for J9 too?
/Erik
On 2013-10-18 17:15, Volker Simonis wrote:
Hi Erik,
I had to fix another issue in the JAXWS build
(https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8026874) but with that I've
finally managed to get to the Corba build with a J9 bootstrap JDK.
With the following small change in BuildCorba.gmk:
- FLAGS:=$(BOOT_JDK_SOURCETARGET) -bootclasspath $(BOOT_RTJAR)
$(DISABLE_CORBA_WARNINGS),\
+ FLAGS:=$(BOOT_JDK_SOURCETARGET) $(DISABLE_CORBA_WARNINGS),\
I could successfully build Corba with J9 as bootstrap JDK. So you (and
the others) were right with your observation that during build time we
don not call the boot JDKs idlj/rmic compilers any more. That's good!
Now to your change (and my two changes lines above). You did the
following in BuildCorba.gmk:
- FLAGS := $(BOOT_JDK_SOURCETARGET) -bootclasspath $(BOOT_RTJAR)
$(DISABLE_CORBA_WARNINGS), \
+ FLAGS := $(BOOT_JDK_SOURCETARGET) -bootclasspath
$(BOOT_RTJAR)$(PATH_SEP)$(BOOT_TOOLSJAR) \
+ $(DISABLE_CORBA_WARNINGS), \
This probably doesn't do what you intended because $(BOOT_RTJAR)
already expands to a complete path and you then append another path
which will give you an invalid file. So actually it turns out that
your change is equivalent to mine where I completely eliminated the
'-bootclasspath' option (although I think mine is cleaner :)
So I wanted to know why we need the '-bootclasspath' option at all,
because we are anyway compiling with the boot JDK and it will use its
$(BOOT_RTJAR) by default.
The same problem also exists in makefiles/Setup.gmk
$(eval $(call SetupJavaCompiler,GENERATE_OLDBYTECODE,\
JVM:=$(JAVA),\
JAVAC:=$(NEW_JAVAC),\
- FLAGS:=-source 7 -target 7 -bootclasspath $(BOOT_RTJAR)
$(DISABLE_WARNINGS),\
+ FLAGS:=-source 7 -target 7 $(DISABLE_WARNINGS),\
SERVER_DIR:=$(SJAVAC_SERVER_DIR),\
SERVER_JVM:=$(SJAVAC_SERVER_JAVA)))
I don't understand why we need the '-bootclasspath' option to javac
because this will executed by the boot JDK and as far as I understand
it will pick up its $(BOOT_RTJAR) anyway.
The problem I have with this construct is that other VMs may not have
all required classes in rt.jar and as far as I know that's not part of
the Java 7 specification. For example J9 has jre/lib/rt.jar but some
classes like Object are in another jar file
(jre/lib/ppc64/{compressedrefs|default}/jclSC170/vm.jar).
So if this '-bootclasspath' option is really needed, I will be
necessary to rework the $(BOOT_RTJAR) detection for every distinct
boot JDK which is not very nice because I think any Java 7 compliant
JDK should work as boot JDK out of the box.
What do you think?
Regards,
Volker
On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 2:51 PM, Volker Simonis
<volker.simo...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 12:22 PM, Erik Joelsson
<erik.joels...@oracle.com> wrote:
On 2013-10-15 17:29, Volker Simonis wrote:
Hi Erik, Alan,
first of all I think this is a good change because it helps porters to
build a complete JDK even if the newly build rmic wouldn't run.
On the other hand I'm a little bit concerned if this change still
allows it to bootstrap with a non-Oracle based bootstrap JDK. I
remember that we had some problems with IBM J9 as bootstrap JDK
because they have different default implementations of idlj and rmic
(see
http://hg.openjdk.java.net/ppc-aix-port/jdk7u/raw-file/tip/README-ppc.html#_TOC_ANCHOR_4_)
Fortunately, the IBM J9 also contains the original Oracle idlj and
rmic versions and with the old build it was possible to use them by
specifying the two variables:
IDLJ='$(ALT_BOOTDIR)/bin/java -cp $(ALT_BOOTDIR)/lib/tools.jar
com.sun.tools.corba.se.idl.toJavaPortable.Compile'
RMIC='$(ALT_BOOTDIR)/bin/java -cp $(ALT_BOOTDIR)/lib/tools.jar
sun.rmi.rmic.Main'
I'm not sure if this is still possible with the new build system.
By the way, the main problem why the IBM J9 idlj and rmic didn't work
out of the box were some command line options which were only
supported by the Oracle implementation. It would therefore be very
nice if you could completely remove such options from the build.
And you can easily check this by trying the IBM J9 as bootstrap JDK on
Linux/x86_64.
I tried building with J9, but it broke in Hotspot already so couldn't get to
the relevant parts of the build.
Just realised this myself and opened "JDK-8026703: Wrongly placed
<xsl:import> element in Event-Based JVM Tracing .xsl files"
(https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8026703). The fix will
follow in the next minutes...
Unfortunately, this is not the last problem before getting to the
"relevant parts" :(
But as David pointed out, this should work
as we aren't running the rmic or idlj in the bootjdk at all now.
This sounds good!
But nevertheless I'll try to verify it if I'll manage to get around
the other build issues :)
/Erik
Thank you and best regards,
Volker
On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at 4:40 PM, Alan Bateman <alan.bate...@oracle.com>
wrote:
On 15/10/2013 15:30, Erik Joelsson wrote:
Currently the RMI stubs in the jdk are built with the newly built rmic
binary at the end of the build. This patch changes that and instead
builds a
bootstrap version of the rmic classes, much like bootstrap javac in
langtools, which runs on the bootjdk, but generates classes for the new
jdk.
The new solution is more friendly to cross compilation.
A few notes on the patch:
* In src/share/classes/sun/tools/tree/Node.java, I had to change a call
to
a jdk8 only constructor in java.lang.InternalError.
* The packages included when compiling rmic were just picked by
extending
for each missing class until the compilation succeeded. If someone knows
of
a crucial package or class that needs to be included, please say so.
* I renamed a parameter to SetupJavaCompilation. I do not consider the
parameter a hack anymore, but a necessary option for this case.
* In RMICompilation, the dependency file is now a real touch file
instead
of a virtual one. This was needed for proper dependencies in
GenerateClasses.gmk.
* All of corba is compiled twice since I have no idea which parts would
actually be needed. This doesn't add much build time since it can be run
effectively in parallel with the rest of the corba build.
* I put the compilation of bootstrap rmic in GenerateClasses.gmk
directly
instead of Tools.gmk. This was to not add much compile time, since
Tools.gmk
is included and therefore parsed a lot.
Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-6604021
Webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~erikj/6604021/webrev.01/
/Erik
It's great to see a solution coming for this, it was always been
troublesome
to run the newly built rmic.
So what are the implications of this? I assume it means that we need to
be
careful in sun.rmi.rmic, sun.tools.{asm,java,javac,tree,util} and
restrict
API usage to what is available in the boot JDK - is that right?
-Alan.
