-
Bug
-
Resolution: Fixed
-
P2
-
10
-
None
I ran
make test TEST=jdk_collections
and was surprised to see:
make[3]: 12: Command not found
It's trying to actually run a command "12" from my PATH, which is big NONO (dangerous!).
After some poking, I came up with:
--- a/test/Makefile
+++ b/test/Makefile
@@ -48,6 +48,7 @@
all: jdk_all langtools_all jaxp_all
ifeq ($(TEST_JOBS), 0)
+ $(info EXPR=$(EXPR) JOBS=$(JOBS))
ifeq ($(shell $(EXPR) $(JOBS) \> 50), 1)
# JTReg cannot handle more than 50 in concurrency
JDK_TEST_JOBS=50
which then shows:
EXPR= JOBS=12
make[3]: 12: Command not found
so the problem is that $(EXPR) is an undefined make variable in this particular Makefile.
It's disturbing that such a serious bug can be found in the current Makefiles. I think GNU make offers features to help remove such bugs.
make test TEST=jdk_collections
and was surprised to see:
make[3]: 12: Command not found
It's trying to actually run a command "12" from my PATH, which is big NONO (dangerous!).
After some poking, I came up with:
--- a/test/Makefile
+++ b/test/Makefile
@@ -48,6 +48,7 @@
all: jdk_all langtools_all jaxp_all
ifeq ($(TEST_JOBS), 0)
+ $(info EXPR=$(EXPR) JOBS=$(JOBS))
ifeq ($(shell $(EXPR) $(JOBS) \> 50), 1)
# JTReg cannot handle more than 50 in concurrency
JDK_TEST_JOBS=50
which then shows:
EXPR= JOBS=12
make[3]: 12: Command not found
so the problem is that $(EXPR) is an undefined make variable in this particular Makefile.
It's disturbing that such a serious bug can be found in the current Makefiles. I think GNU make offers features to help remove such bugs.
- relates to
-
CODETOOLS-7901892 Inconsistent definitions of MAX_CONCURRENCY
- Closed
-
JDK-8189099 JTReg now supports 256 jobs
- Resolved