8305174: disable dtrace for s390x builds

[offamitkumar]

As stated in JBS-issue, dtrace functionality is not available on s390x. So disabling it explicitly in the build.

---

Progress

• Change must be properly reviewed (1 review required, with at least 1 Reviewer)
• Change must not contain extraneous whitespace
• Commit message must refer to an issue

Issue

• JDK-8305174: disable dtrace for s390x builds

Reviewers

• Erik Joelsson (@erikj79 - Reviewer)
• Lutz Schmidt (@RealLucy - Reviewer)
• Matthias Baesken (@MBaesken - Reviewer)

Reviewing

Using git

Checkout this PR locally:
$ git fetch https://git.openjdk.org/jdk.git pull/13228/head:pull/13228
$ git checkout pull/13228

Update a local copy of the PR:
$ git checkout pull/13228
$ git pull https://git.openjdk.org/jdk.git pull/13228/head

Using Skara CLI tools

Checkout this PR locally:
$ git pr checkout 13228

View PR using the GUI difftool:
$ git pr show -t 13228

Using diff file

Download this PR as a diff file:
https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/13228.diff

[bridgekeeper]

👋 Welcome back amitkumar! A progress list of the required criteria for merging this PR into master will be added to the body of your pull request. There are additional pull request commands available for use with this pull request.

[openjdk]

@offamitkumar The following label will be automatically applied to this pull request:

• build

When this pull request is ready to be reviewed, an "RFR" email will be sent to the corresponding mailing list. If you would like to change these labels, use the /label pull request command.

[mlbridge]

Webrevs

• 00: Full (143fe4ef)

[offamitkumar]

@MBaesken , @erikj79 , @RealLucy Please review. 🙂

Probably I'm missing something, But I'm a bit confused that string xs390x is not recognised as a valid CPU here.
Output for xs390x:

checking for dtrace tool and platform support... no
checking sys/sdt.h usability... no
checking sys/sdt.h presence... no
checking for sys/sdt.h... no
configure: Cannot enable dtrace with missing dependencies. See above.
checking if JVM feature 'dtrace' is available... no

output for xs390:

checking for dtrace tool and platform support... no, s390
checking sys/sdt.h usability... no
checking sys/sdt.h presence... no
checking for sys/sdt.h... no
configure: Cannot enable dtrace with missing dependencies. See above.
checking if JVM feature 'dtrace' is available... no

[jaikiran]

@MBaesken , @erikj79 , @RealLucy Please review. 🙂

Probably I'm missing something, But I'm a bit confused that string xs390x is not recognised as a valid CPU here.

Hello Amit, I don't have prior knowledge of these build files, but from what I can see both s390 and s390x get mapped to the same CPU_ARCH here https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/blob/master/make/autoconf/platform.m4#L141 (notice the VAR_CPU_ARCH being set for those)

[offamitkumar]

Still you can see output is different for these strings.

But thanks for pointing out the line number. Mistakenly I was looking on line 580 (in the same file), there also similar thing is done, but now I realised, that's for a different purpose.

[openjdk]

@offamitkumar This change now passes all automated pre-integration checks.

ℹ️ This project also has non-automated pre-integration requirements. Please see the file CONTRIBUTING.md for details.

After integration, the commit message for the final commit will be:

8305174: disable dtrace for s390x builds

Reviewed-by: erikj, lucy, mbaesken

You can use pull request commands such as /summary, /contributor and /issue to adjust it as needed.

At the time when this comment was updated there had been 28 new commits pushed to the master branch:

• 787832a: 8304988: unnecessary dash in @param gives double-dash in docs
• a144c71: 8305008: RISC-V: Factor out immediate checking functions from assembler_riscv.inline.hpp
• d815889: 8304993: bad sentence break in DateFormat
• 5f7b4b8: 8305111: Locale.lookupTag has typo in parameter
• 83cf28f: 8305142: Can't bootstrap ctw.jar
• 05cc02b: 8202110: (fs) Remove FileSystem support for resolving against a default directory (chdir configuration)
• d2df36b: 8299333: Unify exceptions used by all variants of ICC_Profile.getInstance(null)
• 1d7bb1f: 8304585: Method::invoke rewraps InvocationTargetException if a caller-sensitive method throws IAE
• 9df2060: 8305157: The java.util.Arrays class should be declared final
• b261e6c: 8304445: Remaining uses of NULL in ciInstanceKlass.cpp
• ... and 18 more: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/compare/e56bcb04b11c6494e6afdf0bd9b9bc65a4769347...master

As there are no conflicts, your changes will automatically be rebased on top of these commits when integrating. If you prefer to avoid this automatic rebasing, please check the documentation for the /integrate command for further details.

As you do not have Committer status in this project an existing Committer must agree to sponsor your change. Possible candidates are the reviewers of this PR (@erikj79, @RealLucy, @MBaesken) but any other Committer may sponsor as well.

➡️ To flag this PR as ready for integration with the above commit message, type /integrate in a new comment. (Afterwards, your sponsor types /sponsor in a new comment to perform the integration).

[offamitkumar]

Changes are trivial, so /integrate (ing). I request Reviewer/committer to sponsor my changes 😊

[RealLucy]

There always is confusion wrt what is the right string. For me - and there is some ancient history knowledge attached -

• s390 indicates the processor architecture (formerly S/370, S/390; nowadays z/Architecture)
• s390x encodes the processor architecture/operating system combination Linux on S/390.

In the m4 files, both strings are used to identify the processor architecture only.

[RealLucy]

Looks good and trivial.

For formal reasons, we may want to wait for the GHA to complete before we integrate and sponsor.

[MBaesken]

LGTM

[offamitkumar]

Hi all, it appears that checks were already succeeded, but this is not reflected here. Can we do anything?

[MBaesken]

Hi all, it appears that checks were already succeeded, but this is not reflected here. Can we do anything?

If you are refering to the still running macos-x64 tests, I think they are unrelated and those test runs have some issue. I would ignore those.

[MBaesken]

/sponsor

[openjdk]

@MBaesken The change author (@offamitkumar) must issue an integrate command before the integration can be sponsored.

[offamitkumar]

/integrate

looks like, command was not processed.

[MBaesken]

/sponsor

[openjdk]

@offamitkumar
Your change (at version 143fe4e) is now ready to be sponsored by a Committer.

[openjdk]

Going to push as commit 7fe5bd2.
Since your change was applied there have been 28 commits pushed to the master branch:

• 787832a: 8304988: unnecessary dash in @param gives double-dash in docs
• a144c71: 8305008: RISC-V: Factor out immediate checking functions from assembler_riscv.inline.hpp
• d815889: 8304993: bad sentence break in DateFormat
• 5f7b4b8: 8305111: Locale.lookupTag has typo in parameter
• 83cf28f: 8305142: Can't bootstrap ctw.jar
• 05cc02b: 8202110: (fs) Remove FileSystem support for resolving against a default directory (chdir configuration)
• d2df36b: 8299333: Unify exceptions used by all variants of ICC_Profile.getInstance(null)
• 1d7bb1f: 8304585: Method::invoke rewraps InvocationTargetException if a caller-sensitive method throws IAE
• 9df2060: 8305157: The java.util.Arrays class should be declared final
• b261e6c: 8304445: Remaining uses of NULL in ciInstanceKlass.cpp
• ... and 18 more: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/compare/e56bcb04b11c6494e6afdf0bd9b9bc65a4769347...master

Your commit was automatically rebased without conflicts.

[openjdk]

@MBaesken @offamitkumar Pushed as commit 7fe5bd2.

💡 You may see a message that your pull request was closed with unmerged commits. This can be safely ignored.