JDK-8307063: When cross-compiling with hsdis/binutils, buildjdk creation fails

[gctony]

Fix is to exclude hsdis when building the buildjdk.

---

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-8307063: When cross-compiling with hsdis/binutils, buildjdk creation fails

Reviewers

• Erik Joelsson (@erikj79 - Reviewer)

Reviewing

Using git

Checkout this PR locally:
$ git fetch https://git.openjdk.org/jdk.git pull/13697/head:pull/13697
$ git checkout pull/13697

Update a local copy of the PR:
$ git checkout pull/13697
$ git pull https://git.openjdk.org/jdk.git pull/13697/head

Using Skara CLI tools

Checkout this PR locally:
$ git pr checkout 13697

View PR using the GUI difftool:
$ git pr show -t 13697

Using diff file

Download this PR as a diff file:
https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/13697.diff

Webrev

Link to Webrev Comment

[bridgekeeper]

👋 Welcome back tonyp! 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]

@gctony The following labels will be automatically applied to this pull request:

• build
• core-libs

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

[erikj79]

This looks like it should work, but I would like to avoid sprinkling any more CREATING_BUILDJDK conditionals throughout the build than absolutely necessary. I think it would be better to just override HSDIS_BACKEND and ENABLE_HSDIS_BUNDLING in buildjdk-spec.gmk.in with a comment that hsdis should never be enabled in the buildjdk. I haven't tested it though so I may be missing something.

[mlbridge]

Webrevs

• 02: Full - Incremental (6dc12590)
• 01: Full - Incremental (bf62e57d)
• 00: Full (a788df2c)

[gctony]

This looks like it should work, but I would like to avoid sprinkling any more CREATING_BUILDJDK conditionals throughout the build than absolutely necessary. I think it would be better to just override HSDIS_BACKEND and ENABLE_HSDIS_BUNDLING in buildjdk-spec.gmk.in with a comment that hsdis should never be enabled in the buildjdk. I haven't tested it though so I may be missing something.

I haven't looked at the build scripts for quite a while! Let me try what you suggested and see if it works. Thanks.

[gctony]

@erikj79 See updated patch. This is indeed cleaner and seems to work (I tried building x64/riscv binaries with/without hsdis).

[erikj79]

You shouldn't need the override keyword. That is only needed when the value of the variables is set on the make command line. In this case we are simply overriding the values from the main spec.gmk.

[gctony]

updated.

[openjdk]

@gctony 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:

8307063: When cross-compiling with hsdis/binutils, buildjdk creation fails

Reviewed-by: erikj

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 3 new commits pushed to the master branch:

• b827ce8: 8298993: (process) java/lang/ProcessBuilder/UnblockSignals.java fails
• 7871390: 8306952: improve generic signature of internal DCInlineTag class
• 6983d05: 8306927: Collator treats "v" and "w" as the same letter for Swedish language locale.

Please see this link for an up-to-date comparison between the source branch of this pull request and the master branch.
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.

➡️ To integrate this PR with the above commit message to the master branch, type /integrate in a new comment.

[gctony]

@erikj79 Thanks! I assume the integrate command will actually squash the three commits and rebase them on top of master as one commit?

[erikj79]

@erikj79 Thanks! I assume the integrate command will actually squash the three commits and rebase them on top of master as one commit?

Yes, all you need to do is to issue the integrate command, just like the bot instructed here.

[gctony]

/integrate

[openjdk]

Going to push as commit 83a98c6.
Since your change was applied there have been 12 commits pushed to the master branch:

• 452cb84: 8307103: Two TestMetaspaceAllocationMT tests fail after JDK-8306696
• fee02f0: 8299748: java/util/zip/Deinflate.java failing on s390x
• 60a29a6: 8305387: JDK-8301995 breaks arm 32-bit
• 3d9d84b: 8307006: ProblemList gtest/NMTGtest.java on aix
• 84df74c: 8305079: Remove finalize() from compiler/c2/Test719030
• 0b5c504: 8306696: Remove MetaspaceReclaimPolicy=aggressive and obsolete MetaspaceReclaimPolicy
• eb3af8a: 8306901: Macro offset_of confuses Eclipse CDT
• d3abfec: 8305566: Change StringDedup thread to derive from JavaThread
• f3c90f0: 8306711: Improve diagnosis of IntlTest framework
• b827ce8: 8298993: (process) java/lang/ProcessBuilder/UnblockSignals.java fails
• ... and 2 more: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/compare/80fae514b16bfe38ff29f71f8cdc6d4c3482ad3d...master

Your commit was automatically rebased without conflicts.

[openjdk]

@gctony Pushed as commit 83a98c6.

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

[gctony]

All set! Thanks for your help @erikj79 !!!