Thank you all.

Hi Thomas, please help push this: 
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~qpzhang/8238380/webrev.03, I updated the reviewer 
list accordingly. Thanks.

Regards
Patrick

-----Original Message-----
From: core-libs-dev <[email protected]> On Behalf Of Roger 
Riggs
Sent: Thursday, February 6, 2020 10:52 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: RFR: JDK-8238380: java.base/unix/native/libjava/childproc.c 
"multiple definition" link errors with GCC10

+1,

One is enough, but additional eyes are good too.

On 2/5/20 10:35 PM, Patrick Zhang OS wrote:
> Does this require one more “yes” from any other reviewer?
>
> And may I ask for any committer’s help to sponsor and push it (once 
> approved)? Thanks in advance.
>
> Regards
> Patrick
>
> From: Thomas Stüfe <[email protected]>
> Sent: Wednesday, February 5, 2020 11:16 PM
> To: Patrick Zhang OS <[email protected]>
> Cc: core-libs-dev <[email protected]>
> Subject: Re: RFR: JDK-8238380: 
> java.base/unix/native/libjava/childproc.c "multiple definition" link 
> errors with GCC10
>
> All still good.
>
> ...Thomas
>
> On Wed, Feb 5, 2020 at 3:42 PM Patrick Zhang OS 
> <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
> Thanks for your comments, Thomas.
>
> I have no accurate knowledge regarding why parentPathv was initially written 
> as a global var instead of a member in ChildStuff struct initialized in 
> jspawnhelper.c. However the suggested change might not be very 
> straight-forward as there are other references such as: 
> Java_java_lang_ProcessImpl_init(), spawnChild() in libjava\ProcessImpl_md.c, 
> etc. And this goes beyond my original intention to fix the build errors 
> purely, and try best to avoid any side effect. So I would leave the further 
> improvement to others, and keep it as-is. Thanks.
>
> Updated the change a bit (the header comments): 
> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~qpzhang/8238380/webrev.02/
>
> Regards
> Patrick
>
> From: Thomas Stüfe 
> <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>
> Sent: Wednesday, February 5, 2020 2:30 PM
> To: Patrick Zhang OS 
> <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
> >
> Cc: core-libs-dev 
> <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
> >
> Subject: Re: RFR: JDK-8238380: 
> java.base/unix/native/libjava/childproc.c "multiple definition" link 
> errors with GCC10
>
> Hi Patrick,
>
> You patch looks alright.
>
> But I wonder whether a cleaner solution would not be to add a parentPathv 
> pointer to the ChildStuff structure and pass it down to JDK_execvpe that way, 
> like we do for all other input arguments of that function. If it is an input 
> argument, seems strange to pass it as global variable. I leave that for 
> others to decide though, your patch certainly works.
>
> Cheers, Thomas
>
> On Tue, Feb 4, 2020 at 3:39 PM Patrick Zhang OS 
> <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
> Hi
>
> I split the original patch into parts for corresponding function review, here 
> is the very simple change to java.base/unix/native/libjava/childproc.c and .h.
> Could core-libs-dev group help review and sponsor this? thanks in advance.
>
> JBS: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8238380 (a sub-task of 
> JDK-8235903)
> Webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~qpzhang/8238380/webrev.01/
> Test: ran jtreg tier1, jdk built with GCC4.8.5, GCC9, and GCC10, no 
> regression found. I don’t have any specific function tests, so this is just a 
> smoke test.
>
> Regards
> Patrick
>
> From: Martin Buchholz 
> <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]><mailto:martinrb@googl
> e.com<mailto:[email protected]>>>
> Sent: Monday, December 16, 2019 10:44 AM
> To: Patrick Zhang OS 
> <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
> <mailto:[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]
> ng.com>>>; net-dev 
> <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]><mailto:net-
> [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>>; OpenJDK 
> <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]><m
> ailto:[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]
> et>>>
> Cc: core-libs-dev 
> <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
> <mailto:[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]
> va.net>>>
> Subject: Re: RFR: JDK-8235903: GCC default -fno-common exposes 
> "multiple definition" link errors
>
> forwarded to other teams for review.
>
> On Fri, Dec 13, 2019 at 3:14 AM Patrick Zhang OS 
> <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]><mailto:[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>>
>  wrote:
> Hi
>
> Please review this patch, if it should be reviewed by any group other than 
> core-libs, please help forward it. Thanks.
>
> JBS: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8235903
> Webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~qpzhang/8235903/webrev.01/
>
> A recent GCC patch (supposed to be in GCC 10) exposes a couple of "multiple 
> definition" link errors when building the jdk tip.
>
> [PATCH] PR85678: Change default to -fno-common 
> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2019-10/msg01847.html
>
> For example, the error message looks like:
> * For target support_native_java.base_libjava_BUILD_LIBJAVA_link:
> build/support/native/java.base/libjava/childproc.o:(.bss+0x0): multiple 
> definition of `parentPathv'
> build/support/native/java.base/libjava/ProcessImpl_md.o:(.bss+0x0): 
> first defined here
> collect2: error: ld returned 1 exit status
>
> This was not an issue because the original default -fcommon allowed "global 
> variables defined without an initializer" be handled as COMMON symbols, so it 
> would not warn the problem like "same variable is accidentally defined in 
> more than one compilation unit".
>
> About -fcommon vs -fno-cmmon:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Code-Gen-Options.html#index-fno-com
> mon
>
> Moving forward, building jdk with latest versions of GCC will trigger this 
> error. Specifying "--with-extra-cflags='-fcommon'"  can make it work, but it 
> just got things hidden again.
>
> In addition, -fcommon's behavior "is inconsistent with C++, and on many 
> targets implies a speed and code size penalty on global variable references. 
> It is mainly useful to enable legacy code to link without errors."
>
> Last, in case that other jdk developers would revisit this problem once 
> again, I suggest fixing the error explicitly instead of using "-fcommon"
>
> Regards
> Patrick

Reply via email to