[OpenJDK 2D-Dev] RFR(XS): 8213944: Fix AIX build after the removal of Xrandr.h and add a configure check for it (original) (raw)

Volker Simonis volker.simonis at gmail.com
Tue Nov 20 18:13:54 UTC 2018

Thanks everybody for the reviews.

If nobody raises a "Veto" (Phil?) I plan to push this fix tomorrow in its current form.

I've also run it through the submit repo and got an error on Windows for the test "runtime/modules/JVMDefineModule.java" which seems completely unrelated to my change which only touches the X11 implementation on Unix. Can somebody please confirm that?

[Mach5] mach5-one-simonis-JDK-8213944-20181120-1629-11082: FAILED, Failed tests: 1

runtime/modules/JVMDefineModule.java tier1 windows-x64-debug othervm driver ExitCode: -1073741819

Mach5 Tasks Results Summary

UNABLE_TO_RUN: 0 FAILED: 0 EXECUTED_WITH_FAILURE: 1 KILLED: 0 PASSED: 75 NA: 0

Thank you and best regards, Volker

On Tue, Nov 20, 2018 at 12:05 PM Magnus Ihse Bursie <magnus.ihse.bursie at oracle.com> wrote:

On 2018-11-19 18:56, Volker Simonis wrote: > Hi Phil, > > I'd like to kindly ask you to suggest how we can proceed with this issue. > > As I wrote before, Xrandr is not officially supported on AIX and there > are no official packages available for it. There are some OpenSource > sites for AIX which provide Xrandr, but they are all not compatible > with the default native libraries (e.g. the open source Xrandr package > depends on another open source package of Xrender.so.1 but the system > only provides Xrender.so.0 natively). We can't compile the whole JDK > (i.e. libawtxawt.so) against some open source package of Xrender.so.1 > because that simply won't be available on the majority of systems. > > Remember that forcing people to install these open-source packages > even as a build dependency is like expecting Linux users to install > some non-official packages just to be able to build. Especially in > corporate environments that's not easy. Moreover the benefit would be > really minimal, because the Xrandr functionality won't be available at > runtime anyway. > > So to cut a long story short, I see two options: > > 1. Go with my current patch (ugly but efficient) > > 2. Check-in in an AIX specific version of XRander.h/randr.h under > src/java.desktop/aix (OK for me, but that would actually negate the > initial purpose of "8210863: Remove Xrandr include files") > > Do you have a better proposal? I think the change look good, and I vote for strategy 1. As Thomas suggested, if the AIX ifdefs look bad we can create a new define, but I'm not sure that's really helpful - after all, it's just on AIX we currently have no r&r. Having a define would mostly be needed if it was multiple OSes, or similar more complex situations, that would have/not have the r&r extension. Yet another solution, to get rid of the ifdefs, is to move the relevant Xranrd dependent functions into a new, separate file, like awtGraphicsEnvrandr.c, and then in the build exclude it on AIX (or, perhaps if it's worth the trouble, on all platforms where configure did not find Xrandr). /Magnus > > Thank you and best regards, > Volker > > On Fri, Nov 16, 2018 at 11:22 AM Volker Simonis > <volker.simonis at gmail.com> wrote: >> On Thu, Nov 15, 2018 at 6:01 PM Philip Race <philip.race at oracle.com> wrote: >>> PS I am not sure why xrandr headers would not be available for AIX. >>> They are a standard part of the xdistribution. >>> >> I'm not an X11 guru, but as far as I understand, xrandr is an >> extension and as such it doesn't have to be supported by every >> implementation. To the best of my knowledge (I've just started another >> poll among some experts) AIX doesn't support Xrandr and does not have >> the corresponding headers. >> >>> If true, think what you are going to have to do is add a >>> --with-xrandr-include option >>> and provide it that way. >>> >> What if there are no standard Xrandr headers on a platform? Do you >> really want to force users to get them from some dubious sources just >> for building the OpenJDK? Sorry, but I don't think that's a good >> solution. Than I'd rather prefer the ugly ifdefs (or I check the >> headers back in again in an AIX-specific directory :) >> >> Thank you and best regards, >> Volker >> >>> -phil. >>> >>> On 11/15/18, 8:55 AM, Philip Race wrote: >>>> Hmm. I don't like the ifdefs. >>>> >>>> Xrandr is a requirement for the build. If its not there at runtime >>>> that's OK. >>>> >>>> -phil. >>>> >>>> On 11/15/18, 8:06 AM, Volker Simonis wrote: >>>>> Hi, >>>>> >>>>> can I please have a review for the following small change: >>>>> >>>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~simonis/webrevs/2018/8213944/ >>>>> https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8213944 >>>>> >>>>> Change JDK-8210863 removed the Xrandr.h/randr.h headers from the >>>>> OpenJDK sources but forgot to add a configure check for the Xrandr >>>>> extension which is now a build dependency. >>>>> >>>>> The change also broke the AIX build. AIX never supported Xrandr, but >>>>> that was only detected at runtime, when the JDK was unable to >>>>> dynamically load libXrand.so. Now, without Xrandr.h/randr.h in the >>>>> source tree any more, we have to conditionally compile some parts of >>>>> src/java.desktop/unix/native/libawtxawt/awt/awtGraphicsEnv.c such >>>>> that it doesn't require the definitions and declarations from >>>>> Xrandr.h/randr.h any more. >>>>> >>>>> Thank you and best regards, >>>>> Volker

More information about the build-dev mailing list