harmony-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Sean Qiu" <sean.xx....@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [jdktools][build] Which is more recommendable build approach for jdwp?
Date Sat, 08 Mar 2008 16:51:51 GMT
JDWP gurus,

I have tried the first approach in linux, and it works well.
But i have noticed that the dll file is different built is different
between these two approach.

And the first can not run test with error message like
"STDERR> ERROR: [PacketDispatcher.cpp:109] unable to resolve host name
[510/202]: unable to resolve host name"

I noticed that this is caused that the first approach does not link
SocketTransport_pd to the dll. Once i add this obj to
src/main/native/jdwp/windows/transport/makefile, the test can
successfully run again.

Is there any concern to add this ?
I have reported a jira for this[1]

[1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HARMONY-5586

2008/3/5, Sean Qiu <sean.xx.qiu@gmail.com>:
> Thanks very much.
>
> 2008/3/5, Ivan Popov <ivan.g.popov@gmail.com>:
> > First approach is preferred, because it is aligned with the jdktools
> > build structure. You can use "ant -Dbuild.module=jpda build-native" if
> > you want to build only JDWP code (as a native part of JPDA module).
> > For running JDWP unit tests you can use similar command "ant
> > -Dbuild.module=jpda test".
> >
> > Second approach uses internal targets which require proper
> > configuration from top-level build scripts.
> >
> > Thanks.
> > Ivan
> >
> > On Wed, Mar 5, 2008 at 3:08 PM, Sean Qiu <sean.xx.qiu@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > I have found that we have two approaches to build jdwp.
> > >
> > >  1. Through federated build, this will call the make to build jdwp modules.
> > >   a) cd <jdktools>
> > >   b) ant fetch-depends
> > >   c) ant
> > >
> > >  2. Through jpda module's make directory , this approach will call cc
> > >  directly to build jdwp module.
> > >   a) cd <jdktools>\modules\jpda\make
> > >   b) ant build.jdwp.agent
> > >       ant build.jdwp.transport
> > >
> > >  The first approach works fine, but it seems it does not supply any
> > >  test target.(Am i missing something?)
> > >
> > >  The second approach seems a little outdated,  since the directory
> > >  structure is different from current status and it demands some
> > >  modifications to work. It contains a target to run the junit test.
> > >
> > >  I guess the second is the original script before jdktools are included
> > >  in federated build. So we should just using the first one?
> > >
> > >  Best Regards
> > >
> > >  --
> > >  Sean, Xiao Xia Qiu
> > >  China Software Development Lab, IBM
> > >
> >
>
>
> --
> Sean, Xiao Xia Qiu
> China Software Development Lab, IBM
>


-- 
Sean, Xiao Xia Qiu
China Software Development Lab, IBM

Mime
View raw message