Renaming that thing would make sense. It tripped me up too when I was new to OpenJDK.
..Thomas On Mon, Jan 18, 2021 at 9:07 PM Claes Redestad <[email protected]> wrote: > No problem :-) > > I've been advocating for renaming the <build>/jdk intermediary into > something that would make it perfectly obvious to newcomers that _this > is not it_, but I keep getting shot down. Short name convenient! > > /Claes > > On 2021-01-18 20:53, Eirik Bjørsnøs wrote: > > Alan, > > > > Apologies for wasting everyone's time (my own included, although I > learned > > a lot!) > > > > I found images/jdk, and with that there is no regression. > > > > Back to square one :-) > > > > Thanks, > > Eirik. > > > > > > On Mon, Jan 18, 2021 at 8:35 PM Eirik Bjørsnøs <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> > >> Alan, > >> > >> I have been using "make images" all along. This > >> produces build/macosx-x86_64-server-release/jdk/modules with unpacked > >> modules. > >> > >> I'm a bit confused since "make help" seems to indicate that "make jdk" > >> should create unpacked modules, while "make images" should perhaps not? > Or > >> did I misunderstand? > >> > >> Eirik. > >> > >> > >> > >> On Mon, Jan 18, 2021 at 8:31 PM Alan Bateman <[email protected]> > >> wrote: > >> > >>> On 18/01/2021 19:24, Eirik Bjørsnøs wrote: > >>>> For good measure, I did a JFR recording which revealed that > >>>> ExplodedModuleReader was doing file stat in 263 of 277 native method > >>>> samples. > >>>> > >>>> Which lie explains all this, since the 15 I used was not shipped with > >>>> exploded jmods.. > >>>> > >>>> How do I build OpenJDK with packaged modules? > >>>> > >>> Have you done "make images"? You should see images/jdk in your build > >>> output. > >>> > >>> -Alan > >>> > >> >
