[oe] [meta-java][PATCH v2] openjdk-12: Add new recipe
Richard Leitner
richard.leitner at skidata.com
Fri Dec 27 11:33:00 UTC 2019
Hi Mohamad,
thanks for the patch.
Please find my comments below.
On 27/12/2019 09:20, mohamad.noor.alim.hussin at intel.com wrote:
> From: Mohamad Noor Alim Hussin <mohamad.noor.alim.hussin at intel.com>
>
> Openjdk-12 is implementation of Java SE 12.
> This recipe taken from branch jdk12u on release 12.0.2+10 [1].
> Openjdk-12 can compile with glibc on x86_64, x86 and aarch64. Compiling
> against musl is not working.
>
> Some highlight features for openjdk-12 taken from [2-9]
> 189: Shenandoah: A Low-Pause-Time Garbage Collector (Experimental)
> 230: Microbenchmark Suite
> 325: Switch Expressions (Preview)
> 334: JVM Constants API
> 340: One AArch64 Port, Not Two
> 341: Default CDS Archives
> 344: Abortable Mixed Collections for G1
> 346: Promptly Return Unused Committed Memory from G1
>
> For more information see source code at [10].
>
> References
> [1] https://openjdk.java.net/projects/jdk/12/
> [2] https://openjdk.java.net/jeps/189
> [3] https://openjdk.java.net/jeps/230
> [4] https://openjdk.java.net/jeps/325
> [5] https://openjdk.java.net/jeps/334
> [6] https://openjdk.java.net/jeps/340
> [7] https://openjdk.java.net/jeps/341
> [8] https://openjdk.java.net/jeps/344
> [9] https://openjdk.java.net/jeps/346
> [10] https://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk-updates/jdk12u/rev/7b6accc7c009
>
> Signed-off-by: Mohamad Noor Alim Hussin <mohamad.noor.alim.hussin at intel.com>
> ---
> lib/oeqa/files/hello.java | 5 +
> lib/oeqa/runtime/cases/java.py | 16 ++
> lib/oeqa/runtime/cases/javac.py | 27 ++-
> recipes-core/openjdk/openjdk-12-common.inc | 158 ++++++++++++++++++
> recipes-core/openjdk/openjdk-12-cross.inc | 145 ++++++++++++++++
> recipes-core/openjdk/openjdk-12-native.inc | 86 ++++++++++
> .../openjdk/openjdk-12-native_2+10.bb | 2 +
> .../openjdk-12-release-2+10-aarch32.inc | 15 ++
> .../openjdk-12-release-2+10-aarch64.inc | 12 ++
> .../openjdk-12-release-2+10-common.inc | 35 ++++
> .../openjdk/openjdk-12-release-2+10.inc | 11 ++
> recipes-core/openjdk/openjdk-12_2+10.bb | 57 +++++++
> recipes-core/openjdk/openjre-12_2+10.bb | 54 ++++++
> .../0001-fix-stringop-truncate-gcc8.patch | 11 ++
> .../0002-fix-stringop-truncate-gcc8.patch | 38 +++++
> .../filter-aclocal-copy-too.patch | 10 ++
> .../openjdk/patches-openjdk-12/jvm.cfg | 41 +++++
> ...njdk12-find-compiler-fix-env-respect.patch | 11 ++
> ...move-shell-variables-from-autoheader.patch | 28 ++++
> .../images/openjdk-12-test-image.bb | 3 +
> .../images/openjre-12-test-image.bb | 3 +
> 21 files changed, 764 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> create mode 100644 lib/oeqa/files/hello.java
> create mode 100644 recipes-core/openjdk/openjdk-12-common.inc
> create mode 100644 recipes-core/openjdk/openjdk-12-cross.inc
> create mode 100644 recipes-core/openjdk/openjdk-12-native.inc
> create mode 100644 recipes-core/openjdk/openjdk-12-native_2+10.bb
> create mode 100644 recipes-core/openjdk/openjdk-12-release-2+10-aarch32.inc
> create mode 100644 recipes-core/openjdk/openjdk-12-release-2+10-aarch64.inc
> create mode 100644 recipes-core/openjdk/openjdk-12-release-2+10-common.inc
> create mode 100644 recipes-core/openjdk/openjdk-12-release-2+10.inc
> create mode 100644 recipes-core/openjdk/openjdk-12_2+10.bb
> create mode 100644 recipes-core/openjdk/openjre-12_2+10.bb
Is there a reason for representing the version in this format?
Currently opendjk 7 & 8 use <XX>b<YY>, isn't this applicable for OpenJDK12?
> create mode 100644 recipes-core/openjdk/patches-openjdk-12/0001-fix-stringop-truncate-gcc8.patch
> create mode 100644 recipes-core/openjdk/patches-openjdk-12/0002-fix-stringop-truncate-gcc8.patch
> create mode 100644 recipes-core/openjdk/patches-openjdk-12/filter-aclocal-copy-too.patch
> create mode 100644 recipes-core/openjdk/patches-openjdk-12/jvm.cfg
> create mode 100644 recipes-core/openjdk/patches-openjdk-12/openjdk12-find-compiler-fix-env-respect.patch
> create mode 100644 recipes-core/openjdk/patches-openjdk-12/remove-shell-variables-from-autoheader.patch
> create mode 100644 recipes-images/images/openjdk-12-test-image.bb
> create mode 100644 recipes-images/images/openjre-12-test-image.bb
>
> diff --git a/lib/oeqa/files/hello.java b/lib/oeqa/files/hello.java
> new file mode 100644
> index 0000000..b750670
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/lib/oeqa/files/hello.java
> @@ -0,0 +1,5 @@
> +class hello {
> + public static void main(String args[]){
> + System.out.println("Hello Java here!");
> + }
> +}
We have already a test.java, is there a reason for a new "hello.java"?
> diff --git a/lib/oeqa/runtime/cases/java.py b/lib/oeqa/runtime/cases/java.py
> index c1e1498..0cce507 100644
> --- a/lib/oeqa/runtime/cases/java.py
> +++ b/lib/oeqa/runtime/cases/java.py
> @@ -81,3 +81,19 @@ class JavaTest(OERuntimeTestCase):
>
> msg = 'Incorrect mode: %s' % output
> self.assertIn(', compiled mode)', output, msg=msg)
> +
> + # As OpenJDK-12 doesn't support compiled mode (JIT) for arm yet we skip this
> + # test for now.
> + @OEHasPackage(["openjre-12", "openjdk-12"])
> + @OETestDepends(['java.JavaTest.test_java_exists'])
> + @skipIfInDataVar('TUNE_FEATURES', 'armv4', 'OpenJDK 12 compiled mode not yet supported for armv4')
> + @skipIfInDataVar('TUNE_FEATURES', 'armv5', 'OpenJDK 12 compiled mode not yet supported for armv5')
> + @skipIfInDataVar('TUNE_FEATURES', 'armv6', 'OpenJDK 12 compiled mode not yet supported for armv6')
> + def test_java12_jar_comp_mode(self):
> + status, output = self.target.run('java -showversion -Xcomp -jar /tmp/test.jar')
> + msg = 'Exit status was not 0. Output: %s' % output
> + self.assertEqual(status, 0, msg=msg)
> +
> + msg = 'Incorrect mode: %s' % output
> + self.assertIn(', compiled mode)', output, msg=msg)
> +
> diff --git a/lib/oeqa/runtime/cases/javac.py b/lib/oeqa/runtime/cases/javac.py
> index 39ae298..06905b4 100644
> --- a/lib/oeqa/runtime/cases/javac.py
> +++ b/lib/oeqa/runtime/cases/javac.py
> @@ -9,13 +9,22 @@ class JavacTest(OERuntimeTestCase):
> @classmethod
> def setUpClass(cls):
> myfilesdir = os.path.join(os.path.dirname(os.path.realpath(__file__)), '../../files/')
> - src = os.path.join(myfilesdir, 'test.java')
> - dst = '/tmp/test.java'
> - cls.tc.target.copyTo(src, dst)
> + java_src = ['test.java', 'hello.java']
> + for j in java_src:
> + src = os.path.join(myfilesdir, j)
> + dst = '/tmp/%s' % j
> + cls.tc.target.copyTo(src, dst)
>
> @classmethod
> def tearDownClass(cls):
> - dst = '/tmp/test.java /tmp/test.class'
> + java_src = ['test.java', 'hello.java']
> + dst = []
> + d = '/tmp'
> + for j in java_src:
> + jc = j.replace('.java', '.class')
> + dst.append(os.path.join(d, j))
> + dst.append(os.path.join(d, jc))
> + dst = ' '.join(dst)
> cls.tc.target.run('rm %s' % dst)
>
> @OETestDepends(['java.JavaTest.test_java_exists'])
> @@ -29,3 +38,13 @@ class JavacTest(OERuntimeTestCase):
> status, output = self.target.run('javac /tmp/test.java')
> msg = 'Exit status was not 0. Output: %s' % output
> self.assertEqual(status, 0, msg=msg)
> +
> + @OETestDepends(['javac.JavacTest.test_javac_works'])
> + def test_java_runtime(self):
> + status, output = self.target.run('javac /tmp/hello.java')
> + msg = 'Exit status was not 0. Output: %s' % output
> + self.assertEqual(status, 0, msg=msg)
> +
> + status, output = self.target.run('java -cp /tmp hello')
> + msg = 'Exit status was not 0. Output: %s' % output
> + self.assertEqual(status, 0, msg=msg)
Furthermore please create a separate patch for the testcases.
...
> +"
> +
> +# Since v6, GCC sets the default C++ standard to C++14 and introduces
> +# dead store elimination by default. OpenJDK 8 is not ready for either
> +# of these changes.
I guess "OpenJDK 8" here is a copy-and-paste error.
> +FLAGS_GCC6 = "-fno-lifetime-dse -fno-delete-null-pointer-checks"
> +FLAGS_GCC7 = "-fno-lifetime-dse -fno-delete-null-pointer-checks"
> +FLAGS_GCC8 = "-fno-lifetime-dse -fno-delete-null-pointer-checks"
What about GCC9?
...
regards;Richard.L
More information about the Openembedded-devel
mailing list