Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-harmony-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 96716 invoked from network); 5 Mar 2008 14:11:28 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (140.211.11.2) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 5 Mar 2008 14:11:28 -0000 Received: (qmail 17800 invoked by uid 500); 5 Mar 2008 14:11:17 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-harmony-dev-archive@harmony.apache.org Received: (qmail 17766 invoked by uid 500); 5 Mar 2008 14:11:17 -0000 Mailing-List: contact dev-help@harmony.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: dev@harmony.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list dev@harmony.apache.org Received: (qmail 17742 invoked by uid 99); 5 Mar 2008 14:11:17 -0000 Received: from athena.apache.org (HELO athena.apache.org) (140.211.11.136) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Wed, 05 Mar 2008 06:11:17 -0800 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.0 required=10.0 tests=SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of ivan.g.popov@gmail.com designates 64.233.182.184 as permitted sender) Received: from [64.233.182.184] (HELO nf-out-0910.google.com) (64.233.182.184) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Wed, 05 Mar 2008 14:10:42 +0000 Received: by nf-out-0910.google.com with SMTP id k4so1064204nfd.40 for ; Wed, 05 Mar 2008 06:10:51 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; bh=f5nWhrH9tX/JQpzaldmunQ6R+41Wpu7iU3LsJB4II2c=; b=CjOuOoetXABzJY1DQb7L0RKT4c0zvUW1/1AnDrey1740sZu4ZT64HqTJ6mJgSalxvkruxJPDifxFB3es926OwbAEfF7IVLnhJb2MWwgNyTrPGxjqHjhrGyPkWj3O4X8bkGw8pTiKF8py1lmo6K5uJd+gq0mWGjge63HQHpESaFw= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=tvlKdS9pX0wekNUn2GsSiC/ivWTxgg8mUYUCf+3JPSdmUO5qGd4W7CScSSZVcPmoI+DWBY5E3ghg3w+PFXgcEoSoeFz/K2cB0MXqpKEsH7NhSFzI9T6G6LfSvfmeBhLSBippp4LqRZjEjws6xfTPyh4o7vZvgwb+ipL1pdWci2M= Received: by 10.78.170.17 with SMTP id s17mr6594269hue.50.1204726250493; Wed, 05 Mar 2008 06:10:50 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.78.150.19 with HTTP; Wed, 5 Mar 2008 06:10:50 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2008 20:10:50 +0600 From: "Ivan Popov" To: dev@harmony.apache.org Subject: Re: [jdktools][build] Which is more recommendable build approach for jdwp? In-Reply-To: <94d710af0803050145h5fdf8034r28654ab2467ef6c0@mail.gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <94d710af0803050108j482a567asc655d9faa69a21c4@mail.gmail.com> <94d710af0803050145h5fdf8034r28654ab2467ef6c0@mail.gmail.com> X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org It's probably caused by recent modification of drlvm build structure. Running jdktools tests requires JRE binary, which is copied from drlvm module. As a workaround you can explicitly set this property with correct drlvm location in the ant command line. Thanks. Ivan On Wed, Mar 5, 2008 at 3:45 PM, Sean Qiu wrote: > Hi, all > > I can not run the test. > It seems the test target point to wrong deploy location. > > >ant test > > /hdk/working_jdktools/build.xml:242: The following error occurred > while executing this line: > /hdk/working_jdktools/make/build-test.xml:104: > /hdk/working_vm/build/deploy/jdk/jre not found. > > > > Is it should be pointed to ../working_vm/deploy"? > > > 2008/3/5, Sean Qiu : > > > > 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 > > 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 \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 >