Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

8301550: [8u] Enable additional linux build testing in GitHub #254

Closed
wants to merge 1 commit into from

Conversation

zzambers
Copy link
Contributor

@zzambers zzambers commented Jan 31, 2023

Parts of testing in GitHub are currently still disabled as they needed changes to work with JDK 8.

This change does fixes for JDK 8 and enables them. Enabled tests include building hotspot in different configurations and also cross building for other architectures.

Notes on modifications:

  • optimized jvm-variant does not exist on JDK 8, client variant tested instead
  • added support for multilib testing to linux additional (to existing native and cross) as client and minimal variants are only for 32-bits on JDK 8
  • arm and s390x are only available as zero variant on JDK 8 so they use this variant (added required libffi to buildroot)
  • JDK 8 does not support --with-build-jdk configuration option (not to be confused with boot jdk), so it was removed as well as code preparing build jdk
  • dropped dependence of linux additional on linux x64 build (was only needed to get build jdk)
  • In case of JDK 8, a bit more persuasion was required to successfully configure cross build. Explicit configuration of libs was required. Also *FLAGS env. variables with sysroot had to be set for configuration to succeed, but they must not remain set for build, otherwise it fails.

Testing:
All test passed in Github CI.


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-8301550: [8u] Enable additional linux build testing in GitHub

Reviewers

Reviewing

Using git

Checkout this PR locally:
$ git fetch https://git.openjdk.org/jdk8u-dev pull/254/head:pull/254
$ git checkout pull/254

Update a local copy of the PR:
$ git checkout pull/254
$ git pull https://git.openjdk.org/jdk8u-dev pull/254/head

Using Skara CLI tools

Checkout this PR locally:
$ git pr checkout 254

View PR using the GUI difftool:
$ git pr show -t 254

Using diff file

Download this PR as a diff file:
https://git.openjdk.org/jdk8u-dev/pull/254.diff

@bridgekeeper
Copy link

bridgekeeper bot commented Jan 31, 2023

👋 Welcome back zzambers! 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 openjdk bot added the rfr Pull request is ready for review label Jan 31, 2023
@mlbridge
Copy link

mlbridge bot commented Jan 31, 2023

Webrevs

Copy link
Member

@gnu-andrew gnu-andrew left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Looks good to me.

When I did the bare minimum to get the builds working, these additional builds and testing had to be turned off due to the need to pass a JDK bundle between steps, which 8u didn't (and still doesn't) support. It looks like for this, we didn't even need it anyway.

I haven't dug into --with-build-jdk in the later JDKs a lot, but I believe the idea is to save rebuilding the platform independent class files. So our 8u build will take a bit longer as we'll be rebuilding those in cross-compilation, but at least we're not trying to run javac on a Zero-based architecture.

It will be good to have these extra architectures tested, especially arm[32] as I don't believe that's in any of my testing on RHEL and Fedora any more. Please add jdk8u-fix-request to the bug and I'll approve.

@openjdk
Copy link

openjdk bot commented Feb 1, 2023

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

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

8301550: [8u] Enable additional linux build testing in GitHub

Reviewed-by: andrew

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 6 new commits pushed to the master branch:

  • 165ce6a: 8177560: @headful key can be removed from the tests for JavaSound
  • 65b3bd9: 8280048: Missing comma in copyright header
  • 604e582: 8233570: [TESTBUG] HTMLEditorKit test bug5043626.java is failing on macos
  • 563f7b5: 8287741: Fix of JDK-8287107 (unused cgv1 freezer controller) was incomplete
  • b4ee9f8: 8301332: [8u] Fix writing of test files after the cgroups v2 backport
  • 36f6f17: 8287107: CgroupSubsystemFactory.setCgroupV2Path asserts with freezer controller

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.

@openjdk openjdk bot added the ready Pull request is ready to be integrated label Feb 1, 2023
@gnu-andrew
Copy link
Member

Hmmm, it seems the additional build is quite quick because it only does make hotspot. We should maybe consider changing that to make images, as with the other targets, in a later PR, so that the native JDK code is also tested.

@zzambers
Copy link
Contributor Author

zzambers commented Feb 1, 2023

@gnu-andrew Thanks for the review

@zzambers
Copy link
Contributor Author

zzambers commented Feb 1, 2023

Hmmm, it seems the additional build is quite quick because it only does make hotspot. We should maybe consider changing that to make images, as with the other targets, in a later PR, so that the native JDK code is also tested.

Yy, I have not changed it and kept it hotspot only. I have not (yet) tried to do full build, but hopefully it should work. Can be done with later PR, as you said, if desired.

@gnu-andrew
Copy link
Member

Hmmm, it seems the additional build is quite quick because it only does make hotspot. We should maybe consider changing that to make images, as with the other targets, in a later PR, so that the native JDK code is also tested.

Yy, I have not changed it and kept it hotspot only. I have not (yet) tried to do full build, but hopefully it should work. Can be done with later PR, as you said, if desired.

Yeah, I don't want to delay this one any further, so we can try that out in another bug & PR. I've approved this so it's good to push when you're ready.

@zzambers
Copy link
Contributor Author

zzambers commented Feb 1, 2023

@gnu-andrew, thanks
/integrate

@openjdk
Copy link

openjdk bot commented Feb 1, 2023

Going to push as commit 57bc209.
Since your change was applied there have been 6 commits pushed to the master branch:

  • 165ce6a: 8177560: @headful key can be removed from the tests for JavaSound
  • 65b3bd9: 8280048: Missing comma in copyright header
  • 604e582: 8233570: [TESTBUG] HTMLEditorKit test bug5043626.java is failing on macos
  • 563f7b5: 8287741: Fix of JDK-8287107 (unused cgv1 freezer controller) was incomplete
  • b4ee9f8: 8301332: [8u] Fix writing of test files after the cgroups v2 backport
  • 36f6f17: 8287107: CgroupSubsystemFactory.setCgroupV2Path asserts with freezer controller

Your commit was automatically rebased without conflicts.

@openjdk openjdk bot added the integrated Pull request has been integrated label Feb 1, 2023
@openjdk openjdk bot closed this Feb 1, 2023
@openjdk openjdk bot removed ready Pull request is ready to be integrated rfr Pull request is ready for review labels Feb 1, 2023
@openjdk
Copy link

openjdk bot commented Feb 1, 2023

@zzambers Pushed as commit 57bc209.

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

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
integrated Pull request has been integrated
2 participants