Hi Mohamad,
thanks for the patch.
Please find my comments below.
On 27/12/2019 09:20, [email protected] wrote:
From: Mohamad Noor Alim Hussin <[email protected]>
Openjdk-12 is implementation of Java SE 12.
This recipe taken from branch jdk12u on release 12.0.2+10 [1].
Openjdk-12 can compile with glibc on x86_64, x86 and aarch64. Compiling
against musl is not working.
Some highlight features for openjdk-12 taken from [2-9]
189: Shenandoah: A Low-Pause-Time Garbage Collector (Experimental)
230: Microbenchmark Suite
325: Switch Expressions (Preview)
334: JVM Constants API
340: One AArch64 Port, Not Two
341: Default CDS Archives
344: Abortable Mixed Collections for G1
346: Promptly Return Unused Committed Memory from G1
For more information see source code at [10].
References
[1] https://openjdk.java.net/projects/jdk/12/
[2] https://openjdk.java.net/jeps/189
[3] https://openjdk.java.net/jeps/230
[4] https://openjdk.java.net/jeps/325
[5] https://openjdk.java.net/jeps/334
[6] https://openjdk.java.net/jeps/340
[7] https://openjdk.java.net/jeps/341
[8] https://openjdk.java.net/jeps/344
[9] https://openjdk.java.net/jeps/346
[10] https://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk-updates/jdk12u/rev/7b6accc7c009
Signed-off-by: Mohamad Noor Alim Hussin <[email protected]>
---
lib/oeqa/files/hello.java | 5 +
lib/oeqa/runtime/cases/java.py | 16 ++
lib/oeqa/runtime/cases/javac.py | 27 ++-
recipes-core/openjdk/openjdk-12-common.inc | 158 ++++++++++++++++++
recipes-core/openjdk/openjdk-12-cross.inc | 145 ++++++++++++++++
recipes-core/openjdk/openjdk-12-native.inc | 86 ++++++++++
.../openjdk/openjdk-12-native_2+10.bb | 2 +
.../openjdk-12-release-2+10-aarch32.inc | 15 ++
.../openjdk-12-release-2+10-aarch64.inc | 12 ++
.../openjdk-12-release-2+10-common.inc | 35 ++++
.../openjdk/openjdk-12-release-2+10.inc | 11 ++
recipes-core/openjdk/openjdk-12_2+10.bb | 57 +++++++
recipes-core/openjdk/openjre-12_2+10.bb | 54 ++++++
.../0001-fix-stringop-truncate-gcc8.patch | 11 ++
.../0002-fix-stringop-truncate-gcc8.patch | 38 +++++
.../filter-aclocal-copy-too.patch | 10 ++
.../openjdk/patches-openjdk-12/jvm.cfg | 41 +++++
...njdk12-find-compiler-fix-env-respect.patch | 11 ++
...move-shell-variables-from-autoheader.patch | 28 ++++
.../images/openjdk-12-test-image.bb | 3 +
.../images/openjre-12-test-image.bb | 3 +
21 files changed, 764 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
create mode 100644 lib/oeqa/files/hello.java
create mode 100644 recipes-core/openjdk/openjdk-12-common.inc
create mode 100644 recipes-core/openjdk/openjdk-12-cross.inc
create mode 100644 recipes-core/openjdk/openjdk-12-native.inc
create mode 100644 recipes-core/openjdk/openjdk-12-native_2+10.bb
create mode 100644 recipes-core/openjdk/openjdk-12-release-2+10-aarch32.inc
create mode 100644 recipes-core/openjdk/openjdk-12-release-2+10-aarch64.inc
create mode 100644 recipes-core/openjdk/openjdk-12-release-2+10-common.inc
create mode 100644 recipes-core/openjdk/openjdk-12-release-2+10.inc
create mode 100644 recipes-core/openjdk/openjdk-12_2+10.bb
create mode 100644 recipes-core/openjdk/openjre-12_2+10.bb
Is there a reason for representing the version in this format?
Currently opendjk 7 & 8 use <XX>b<YY>, isn't this applicable for OpenJDK12?
create mode 100644
recipes-core/openjdk/patches-openjdk-12/0001-fix-stringop-truncate-gcc8.patch
create mode 100644
recipes-core/openjdk/patches-openjdk-12/0002-fix-stringop-truncate-gcc8.patch
create mode 100644
recipes-core/openjdk/patches-openjdk-12/filter-aclocal-copy-too.patch
create mode 100644 recipes-core/openjdk/patches-openjdk-12/jvm.cfg
create mode 100644
recipes-core/openjdk/patches-openjdk-12/openjdk12-find-compiler-fix-env-respect.patch
create mode 100644
recipes-core/openjdk/patches-openjdk-12/remove-shell-variables-from-autoheader.patch
create mode 100644 recipes-images/images/openjdk-12-test-image.bb
create mode 100644 recipes-images/images/openjre-12-test-image.bb
diff --git a/lib/oeqa/files/hello.java b/lib/oeqa/files/hello.java
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..b750670
--- /dev/null
+++ b/lib/oeqa/files/hello.java
@@ -0,0 +1,5 @@
+class hello {
+ public static void main(String args[]){
+ System.out.println("Hello Java here!");
+ }
+}
We have already a test.java, is there a reason for a new "hello.java"?
diff --git a/lib/oeqa/runtime/cases/java.py b/lib/oeqa/runtime/cases/java.py
index c1e1498..0cce507 100644
--- a/lib/oeqa/runtime/cases/java.py
+++ b/lib/oeqa/runtime/cases/java.py
@@ -81,3 +81,19 @@ class JavaTest(OERuntimeTestCase):
msg = 'Incorrect mode: %s' % output
self.assertIn(', compiled mode)', output, msg=msg)
+
+ # As OpenJDK-12 doesn't support compiled mode (JIT) for arm yet we skip
this
+ # test for now.
+ @OEHasPackage(["openjre-12", "openjdk-12"])
+ @OETestDepends(['java.JavaTest.test_java_exists'])
+ @skipIfInDataVar('TUNE_FEATURES', 'armv4', 'OpenJDK 12 compiled mode not
yet supported for armv4')
+ @skipIfInDataVar('TUNE_FEATURES', 'armv5', 'OpenJDK 12 compiled mode not
yet supported for armv5')
+ @skipIfInDataVar('TUNE_FEATURES', 'armv6', 'OpenJDK 12 compiled mode not
yet supported for armv6')
+ def test_java12_jar_comp_mode(self):
+ status, output = self.target.run('java -showversion -Xcomp -jar
/tmp/test.jar')
+ msg = 'Exit status was not 0. Output: %s' % output
+ self.assertEqual(status, 0, msg=msg)
+
+ msg = 'Incorrect mode: %s' % output
+ self.assertIn(', compiled mode)', output, msg=msg)
+
diff --git a/lib/oeqa/runtime/cases/javac.py b/lib/oeqa/runtime/cases/javac.py
index 39ae298..06905b4 100644
--- a/lib/oeqa/runtime/cases/javac.py
+++ b/lib/oeqa/runtime/cases/javac.py
@@ -9,13 +9,22 @@ class JavacTest(OERuntimeTestCase):
@classmethod
def setUpClass(cls):
myfilesdir =
os.path.join(os.path.dirname(os.path.realpath(__file__)), '../../files/')
- src = os.path.join(myfilesdir, 'test.java')
- dst = '/tmp/test.java'
- cls.tc.target.copyTo(src, dst)
+ java_src = ['test.java', 'hello.java']
+ for j in java_src:
+ src = os.path.join(myfilesdir, j)
+ dst = '/tmp/%s' % j
+ cls.tc.target.copyTo(src, dst)
@classmethod
def tearDownClass(cls):
- dst = '/tmp/test.java /tmp/test.class'
+ java_src = ['test.java', 'hello.java']
+ dst = []
+ d = '/tmp'
+ for j in java_src:
+ jc = j.replace('.java', '.class')
+ dst.append(os.path.join(d, j))
+ dst.append(os.path.join(d, jc))
+ dst = ' '.join(dst)
cls.tc.target.run('rm %s' % dst)
@OETestDepends(['java.JavaTest.test_java_exists'])
@@ -29,3 +38,13 @@ class JavacTest(OERuntimeTestCase):
status, output = self.target.run('javac /tmp/test.java')
msg = 'Exit status was not 0. Output: %s' % output
self.assertEqual(status, 0, msg=msg)
+
+ @OETestDepends(['javac.JavacTest.test_javac_works'])
+ def test_java_runtime(self):
+ status, output = self.target.run('javac /tmp/hello.java')
+ msg = 'Exit status was not 0. Output: %s' % output
+ self.assertEqual(status, 0, msg=msg)
+
+ status, output = self.target.run('java -cp /tmp hello')
+ msg = 'Exit status was not 0. Output: %s' % output
+ self.assertEqual(status, 0, msg=msg)
Furthermore please create a separate patch for the testcases.
...
+"
+
+# Since v6, GCC sets the default C++ standard to C++14 and introduces
+# dead store elimination by default. OpenJDK 8 is not ready for either
+# of these changes.
I guess "OpenJDK 8" here is a copy-and-paste error.
+FLAGS_GCC6 = "-fno-lifetime-dse -fno-delete-null-pointer-checks"
+FLAGS_GCC7 = "-fno-lifetime-dse -fno-delete-null-pointer-checks"
+FLAGS_GCC8 = "-fno-lifetime-dse -fno-delete-null-pointer-checks"
What about GCC9?
...
regards;Richard.L
--
_______________________________________________
Openembedded-devel mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-devel
