harmony-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Geir Magnusson Jr." <g...@pobox.com>
Subject Re: [jdktools] Building jdktools and JPDA component
Date Mon, 18 Dec 2006 22:57:21 GMT


Ivan Popov wrote:
> Makefiles for JPDA component in jdktools pass the following include
> directory to native compiler:
> 
>  -I$(HY_DRLVM)\jdk\include
> 
> which is expanded to
> 
>  <…>\trunk\working_vm\build\deploy\jdk\include
> 
> However, default build for working_vm creates DRLVM build in a
> platform dependent directory:
> 
>  <…>\trunk\working_vm\build\win_ia32_msvc_debug\deploy\jdk\include
> 
> That's why header files from DRLVM were not found in my build. Do you
> have DRLVM build in a platform independent directory?
> 

Yes.  (This feature has now been there for months...)

There's a flag "deploy.canonical.flag" that you can specify on the 
command line or more commonly, put in the

   build/drlvm.properties

file which has the output go into the directory that you noted above 
(deploy/...)

I made the mistake of not defaulting that flag to true, which I will fix 
now.  If you don't like it, turn it off. :)

> We could fix makefiles to look into platform dependent DRLVM build
> directory or look into VM sources (working_vm\vm\include). But, since
> JNI/JVMTI headers are VM-independent, it's better to get them from
> classlib, not from DRLVM.

Yes, we know.  That's why we moved them there.

But the "canonical deploy directory" feature of the DRLVM build made 
everything work.

Again, the problem was that the flag wasn't set to do this by default, 
but it will going forward.

> 
> However, now we have similar header files in classlib and DRLVM
> sources and need to synchronize them in case of any changes. I still
> think it's better to move these headers to common_resources/include
> and use the same headers in both classlib and DRLVM builds.


We were planning to get them out of DRLVM , but your idea is a good one. 
  I'd like to see more things move to common_resources, if that makes sense.

geir



> 
> Thanks.
> Ivan
> 
> 
> On 12/18/06, Geir Magnusson Jr. <geir@pobox.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> Tim Ellison wrote:
>> > Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
>> >> If you haven't yet, let me know and I will - I'm confused how he can't
>> >> build and want to figure that out.
>> >
>> > I did already (r488244).  Apologies if that was too quick to figure out
>> > the issue.  I also don't grok why the build would not have worked from
>> > the DRLVM copy, but figured it makes sense to unify on a single set of
>> > includes for jni/jvmti.
>> >
>>
>> No worries - thanks for doing it.
>>
>> Yes, there's no argument there - we need one copy.  I'll go now and
>> clean up anything that depends on it, then remove the DRLVM copies.
>>
>> I just wanted to figure out why Ivan thought he couldn't build w/o this
>> change.
>>
>>
>> > For now the classlib version is a copy of the DRLVM files, giving folk
>> > time to migrate the build scripts etc.
>>
>> Yep
>>
>> geir
>>

Mime
View raw message