2018-10-02 17:38:19 +02:00
|
|
|
// Copyright 2018 Google Inc. All rights reserved.
|
|
|
|
//
|
|
|
|
// Licensed under the Apache License, Version 2.0 (the "License");
|
|
|
|
// you may not use this file except in compliance with the License.
|
|
|
|
// You may obtain a copy of the License at
|
|
|
|
//
|
|
|
|
// http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0
|
|
|
|
//
|
|
|
|
// Unless required by applicable law or agreed to in writing, software
|
|
|
|
// distributed under the License is distributed on an "AS IS" BASIS,
|
|
|
|
// WITHOUT WARRANTIES OR CONDITIONS OF ANY KIND, either express or implied.
|
|
|
|
// See the License for the specific language governing permissions and
|
|
|
|
// limitations under the License.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
package android
|
|
|
|
|
Don't create unnecessary APEX variations
This change fixes a problem that APEX variations are created for the
modules that actually shouldn't built for any APEX. For example,
consider this case.
apex { name: "myapex", native_shared_libs: ["mylib"],}
cc_library { name: "mylib", shared_libs: ["libfoo#10"],}
cc_library { name: "libfoo",
shared_libs: ["libbar"],
stubs: { versions: ["10"], }, }
cc_library { name: "libbar", ...}
Before this change, both the stubs and non-stubs variations of libfoo
were mutated with apexMuator, which is incorrect for the non-stubs
varia; there is no dependency chain from the apex "myapex" to the
non-stubs variation, but to the stubs variation due to the #10 syntax.
This was happening becauses we used the name of the module to determine
whether it should be built for APEX or not. Both stubs and non-stubs
variations have the same module name "libfoo".
Fixing this issue by recording the list of APEX variations required
directly on the module. So, the stubs variation of libfoo has myapex in
its apex variations list, but the non-stubs variation doesn't, and thus
apexMutator does not pick up the non-stubs variation.
Test: m (apex_test updated and passing)
Test: cherry-pick ag/5747464 and m
Change-Id: I31e618626809a828a55fff513ef5f81f79637afa
2018-12-10 17:35:25 +01:00
|
|
|
import (
|
2019-06-04 00:07:03 +02:00
|
|
|
"sort"
|
Don't create unnecessary APEX variations
This change fixes a problem that APEX variations are created for the
modules that actually shouldn't built for any APEX. For example,
consider this case.
apex { name: "myapex", native_shared_libs: ["mylib"],}
cc_library { name: "mylib", shared_libs: ["libfoo#10"],}
cc_library { name: "libfoo",
shared_libs: ["libbar"],
stubs: { versions: ["10"], }, }
cc_library { name: "libbar", ...}
Before this change, both the stubs and non-stubs variations of libfoo
were mutated with apexMuator, which is incorrect for the non-stubs
varia; there is no dependency chain from the apex "myapex" to the
non-stubs variation, but to the stubs variation due to the #10 syntax.
This was happening becauses we used the name of the module to determine
whether it should be built for APEX or not. Both stubs and non-stubs
variations have the same module name "libfoo".
Fixing this issue by recording the list of APEX variations required
directly on the module. So, the stubs variation of libfoo has myapex in
its apex variations list, but the non-stubs variation doesn't, and thus
apexMutator does not pick up the non-stubs variation.
Test: m (apex_test updated and passing)
Test: cherry-pick ag/5747464 and m
Change-Id: I31e618626809a828a55fff513ef5f81f79637afa
2018-12-10 17:35:25 +01:00
|
|
|
"sync"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"github.com/google/blueprint"
|
|
|
|
)
|
Stubs variant is used when building for APEX
When a native module is built for an APEX and is depending on a native
library having stubs (i.e. stubs.versions property is set), the stubs
variant is used unless the dependent lib is directly included in the
same APEX with the depending module.
Example:
apex {
name: "myapex",
native_shared_libs: ["libX", "libY"],
}
cc_library {
name: "libX",
shared_libs: ["libY", "libZ"],
}
cc_library {
name: "libY",
stubs: { versions: ["1", "2"], },
}
cc_library {
name: "libZ",
stubs: { versions: ["1", "2"], },
}
In this case, libX is linking to the impl variant of libY (that provides
private APIs) while libY is linking to the version 2 stubs of libZ. This is
because libY is directly included in the same apex via
native_shared_libs property, but libZ isn't.
Bug: 112672359
Test: apex_test added
Change-Id: If9871b70dc74a06bd828dd4cd1aeebd2e68b837c
2018-11-18 10:02:45 +01:00
|
|
|
|
2018-10-02 17:38:19 +02:00
|
|
|
// ApexModule is the interface that a module type is expected to implement if
|
|
|
|
// the module has to be built differently depending on whether the module
|
|
|
|
// is destined for an apex or not (installed to one of the regular partitions).
|
|
|
|
//
|
|
|
|
// Native shared libraries are one such module type; when it is built for an
|
|
|
|
// APEX, it should depend only on stable interfaces such as NDK, stable AIDL,
|
|
|
|
// or C APIs from other APEXs.
|
|
|
|
//
|
|
|
|
// A module implementing this interface will be mutated into multiple
|
Don't create unnecessary APEX variations
This change fixes a problem that APEX variations are created for the
modules that actually shouldn't built for any APEX. For example,
consider this case.
apex { name: "myapex", native_shared_libs: ["mylib"],}
cc_library { name: "mylib", shared_libs: ["libfoo#10"],}
cc_library { name: "libfoo",
shared_libs: ["libbar"],
stubs: { versions: ["10"], }, }
cc_library { name: "libbar", ...}
Before this change, both the stubs and non-stubs variations of libfoo
were mutated with apexMuator, which is incorrect for the non-stubs
varia; there is no dependency chain from the apex "myapex" to the
non-stubs variation, but to the stubs variation due to the #10 syntax.
This was happening becauses we used the name of the module to determine
whether it should be built for APEX or not. Both stubs and non-stubs
variations have the same module name "libfoo".
Fixing this issue by recording the list of APEX variations required
directly on the module. So, the stubs variation of libfoo has myapex in
its apex variations list, but the non-stubs variation doesn't, and thus
apexMutator does not pick up the non-stubs variation.
Test: m (apex_test updated and passing)
Test: cherry-pick ag/5747464 and m
Change-Id: I31e618626809a828a55fff513ef5f81f79637afa
2018-12-10 17:35:25 +01:00
|
|
|
// variations by apex.apexMutator if it is directly or indirectly included
|
2018-10-02 17:38:19 +02:00
|
|
|
// in one or more APEXs. Specifically, if a module is included in apex.foo and
|
|
|
|
// apex.bar then three apex variants are created: platform, apex.foo and
|
|
|
|
// apex.bar. The platform variant is for the regular partitions
|
|
|
|
// (e.g., /system or /vendor, etc.) while the other two are for the APEXs,
|
|
|
|
// respectively.
|
|
|
|
type ApexModule interface {
|
|
|
|
Module
|
|
|
|
apexModuleBase() *ApexModuleBase
|
|
|
|
|
Don't create unnecessary APEX variations
This change fixes a problem that APEX variations are created for the
modules that actually shouldn't built for any APEX. For example,
consider this case.
apex { name: "myapex", native_shared_libs: ["mylib"],}
cc_library { name: "mylib", shared_libs: ["libfoo#10"],}
cc_library { name: "libfoo",
shared_libs: ["libbar"],
stubs: { versions: ["10"], }, }
cc_library { name: "libbar", ...}
Before this change, both the stubs and non-stubs variations of libfoo
were mutated with apexMuator, which is incorrect for the non-stubs
varia; there is no dependency chain from the apex "myapex" to the
non-stubs variation, but to the stubs variation due to the #10 syntax.
This was happening becauses we used the name of the module to determine
whether it should be built for APEX or not. Both stubs and non-stubs
variations have the same module name "libfoo".
Fixing this issue by recording the list of APEX variations required
directly on the module. So, the stubs variation of libfoo has myapex in
its apex variations list, but the non-stubs variation doesn't, and thus
apexMutator does not pick up the non-stubs variation.
Test: m (apex_test updated and passing)
Test: cherry-pick ag/5747464 and m
Change-Id: I31e618626809a828a55fff513ef5f81f79637afa
2018-12-10 17:35:25 +01:00
|
|
|
// Marks that this module should be built for the APEX of the specified name.
|
|
|
|
// Call this before apex.apexMutator is run.
|
2018-10-02 17:38:19 +02:00
|
|
|
BuildForApex(apexName string)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
// Returns the name of APEX that this module will be built for. Empty string
|
|
|
|
// is returned when 'IsForPlatform() == true'. Note that a module can be
|
Don't create unnecessary APEX variations
This change fixes a problem that APEX variations are created for the
modules that actually shouldn't built for any APEX. For example,
consider this case.
apex { name: "myapex", native_shared_libs: ["mylib"],}
cc_library { name: "mylib", shared_libs: ["libfoo#10"],}
cc_library { name: "libfoo",
shared_libs: ["libbar"],
stubs: { versions: ["10"], }, }
cc_library { name: "libbar", ...}
Before this change, both the stubs and non-stubs variations of libfoo
were mutated with apexMuator, which is incorrect for the non-stubs
varia; there is no dependency chain from the apex "myapex" to the
non-stubs variation, but to the stubs variation due to the #10 syntax.
This was happening becauses we used the name of the module to determine
whether it should be built for APEX or not. Both stubs and non-stubs
variations have the same module name "libfoo".
Fixing this issue by recording the list of APEX variations required
directly on the module. So, the stubs variation of libfoo has myapex in
its apex variations list, but the non-stubs variation doesn't, and thus
apexMutator does not pick up the non-stubs variation.
Test: m (apex_test updated and passing)
Test: cherry-pick ag/5747464 and m
Change-Id: I31e618626809a828a55fff513ef5f81f79637afa
2018-12-10 17:35:25 +01:00
|
|
|
// included in multiple APEXes, in which case, the module is mutated into
|
2018-10-02 17:38:19 +02:00
|
|
|
// multiple modules each of which for an APEX. This method returns the
|
|
|
|
// name of the APEX that a variant module is for.
|
Don't create unnecessary APEX variations
This change fixes a problem that APEX variations are created for the
modules that actually shouldn't built for any APEX. For example,
consider this case.
apex { name: "myapex", native_shared_libs: ["mylib"],}
cc_library { name: "mylib", shared_libs: ["libfoo#10"],}
cc_library { name: "libfoo",
shared_libs: ["libbar"],
stubs: { versions: ["10"], }, }
cc_library { name: "libbar", ...}
Before this change, both the stubs and non-stubs variations of libfoo
were mutated with apexMuator, which is incorrect for the non-stubs
varia; there is no dependency chain from the apex "myapex" to the
non-stubs variation, but to the stubs variation due to the #10 syntax.
This was happening becauses we used the name of the module to determine
whether it should be built for APEX or not. Both stubs and non-stubs
variations have the same module name "libfoo".
Fixing this issue by recording the list of APEX variations required
directly on the module. So, the stubs variation of libfoo has myapex in
its apex variations list, but the non-stubs variation doesn't, and thus
apexMutator does not pick up the non-stubs variation.
Test: m (apex_test updated and passing)
Test: cherry-pick ag/5747464 and m
Change-Id: I31e618626809a828a55fff513ef5f81f79637afa
2018-12-10 17:35:25 +01:00
|
|
|
// Call this after apex.apexMutator is run.
|
2018-10-02 17:38:19 +02:00
|
|
|
ApexName() string
|
|
|
|
|
Don't create unnecessary APEX variations
This change fixes a problem that APEX variations are created for the
modules that actually shouldn't built for any APEX. For example,
consider this case.
apex { name: "myapex", native_shared_libs: ["mylib"],}
cc_library { name: "mylib", shared_libs: ["libfoo#10"],}
cc_library { name: "libfoo",
shared_libs: ["libbar"],
stubs: { versions: ["10"], }, }
cc_library { name: "libbar", ...}
Before this change, both the stubs and non-stubs variations of libfoo
were mutated with apexMuator, which is incorrect for the non-stubs
varia; there is no dependency chain from the apex "myapex" to the
non-stubs variation, but to the stubs variation due to the #10 syntax.
This was happening becauses we used the name of the module to determine
whether it should be built for APEX or not. Both stubs and non-stubs
variations have the same module name "libfoo".
Fixing this issue by recording the list of APEX variations required
directly on the module. So, the stubs variation of libfoo has myapex in
its apex variations list, but the non-stubs variation doesn't, and thus
apexMutator does not pick up the non-stubs variation.
Test: m (apex_test updated and passing)
Test: cherry-pick ag/5747464 and m
Change-Id: I31e618626809a828a55fff513ef5f81f79637afa
2018-12-10 17:35:25 +01:00
|
|
|
// Tests whether this module will be built for the platform or not.
|
|
|
|
// This is a shortcut for ApexName() == ""
|
|
|
|
IsForPlatform() bool
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
// Tests if this module could have APEX variants. APEX variants are
|
2018-10-02 17:38:19 +02:00
|
|
|
// created only for the modules that returns true here. This is useful
|
Don't create unnecessary APEX variations
This change fixes a problem that APEX variations are created for the
modules that actually shouldn't built for any APEX. For example,
consider this case.
apex { name: "myapex", native_shared_libs: ["mylib"],}
cc_library { name: "mylib", shared_libs: ["libfoo#10"],}
cc_library { name: "libfoo",
shared_libs: ["libbar"],
stubs: { versions: ["10"], }, }
cc_library { name: "libbar", ...}
Before this change, both the stubs and non-stubs variations of libfoo
were mutated with apexMuator, which is incorrect for the non-stubs
varia; there is no dependency chain from the apex "myapex" to the
non-stubs variation, but to the stubs variation due to the #10 syntax.
This was happening becauses we used the name of the module to determine
whether it should be built for APEX or not. Both stubs and non-stubs
variations have the same module name "libfoo".
Fixing this issue by recording the list of APEX variations required
directly on the module. So, the stubs variation of libfoo has myapex in
its apex variations list, but the non-stubs variation doesn't, and thus
apexMutator does not pick up the non-stubs variation.
Test: m (apex_test updated and passing)
Test: cherry-pick ag/5747464 and m
Change-Id: I31e618626809a828a55fff513ef5f81f79637afa
2018-12-10 17:35:25 +01:00
|
|
|
// for not creating APEX variants for certain types of shared libraries
|
|
|
|
// such as NDK stubs.
|
2018-10-02 17:38:19 +02:00
|
|
|
CanHaveApexVariants() bool
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
// Tests if this module can be installed to APEX as a file. For example,
|
|
|
|
// this would return true for shared libs while return false for static
|
|
|
|
// libs.
|
|
|
|
IsInstallableToApex() bool
|
Don't create unnecessary APEX variations
This change fixes a problem that APEX variations are created for the
modules that actually shouldn't built for any APEX. For example,
consider this case.
apex { name: "myapex", native_shared_libs: ["mylib"],}
cc_library { name: "mylib", shared_libs: ["libfoo#10"],}
cc_library { name: "libfoo",
shared_libs: ["libbar"],
stubs: { versions: ["10"], }, }
cc_library { name: "libbar", ...}
Before this change, both the stubs and non-stubs variations of libfoo
were mutated with apexMuator, which is incorrect for the non-stubs
varia; there is no dependency chain from the apex "myapex" to the
non-stubs variation, but to the stubs variation due to the #10 syntax.
This was happening becauses we used the name of the module to determine
whether it should be built for APEX or not. Both stubs and non-stubs
variations have the same module name "libfoo".
Fixing this issue by recording the list of APEX variations required
directly on the module. So, the stubs variation of libfoo has myapex in
its apex variations list, but the non-stubs variation doesn't, and thus
apexMutator does not pick up the non-stubs variation.
Test: m (apex_test updated and passing)
Test: cherry-pick ag/5747464 and m
Change-Id: I31e618626809a828a55fff513ef5f81f79637afa
2018-12-10 17:35:25 +01:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
// Mutate this module into one or more variants each of which is built
|
|
|
|
// for an APEX marked via BuildForApex().
|
|
|
|
CreateApexVariations(mctx BottomUpMutatorContext) []blueprint.Module
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
// Sets the name of the apex variant of this module. Called inside
|
|
|
|
// CreateApexVariations.
|
|
|
|
setApexName(apexName string)
|
2019-08-12 03:37:49 +02:00
|
|
|
|
Add apex_available to control the availablity of a module to APEXes
apex_available property controls the availability of a module to APEXes.
For example, `apex_available: ["myapex", "otherapex"]` makes the module
available only to the two APEXes: myapex and otherapex, and nothing
else, even to the platform.
If the module is intended to be available to any APEX, then a pseudo
name "//apex_available:anyapex" can be used.
If the module is intended to be available to the platform, then another
pseudo name "//apex_available:platform" is used.
For now, if unspecified, this property defaults to ["//apex_available:platform",
"//apex_available:anyapex"], which means the module is available to everybody.
This will be reduced to ["//apex_available:platform"], when marking for
apex_available for existing modules are finished.
Bug: 139870423
Bug: 128708192
Test: m
Change-Id: Id4b233c3056c7858f984cbf9427cfac4118b2682
2019-09-30 09:04:35 +02:00
|
|
|
// Tests if this module is available for the specified APEX or ":platform"
|
|
|
|
AvailableFor(what string) bool
|
2018-10-02 17:38:19 +02:00
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
type ApexProperties struct {
|
Add apex_available to control the availablity of a module to APEXes
apex_available property controls the availability of a module to APEXes.
For example, `apex_available: ["myapex", "otherapex"]` makes the module
available only to the two APEXes: myapex and otherapex, and nothing
else, even to the platform.
If the module is intended to be available to any APEX, then a pseudo
name "//apex_available:anyapex" can be used.
If the module is intended to be available to the platform, then another
pseudo name "//apex_available:platform" is used.
For now, if unspecified, this property defaults to ["//apex_available:platform",
"//apex_available:anyapex"], which means the module is available to everybody.
This will be reduced to ["//apex_available:platform"], when marking for
apex_available for existing modules are finished.
Bug: 139870423
Bug: 128708192
Test: m
Change-Id: Id4b233c3056c7858f984cbf9427cfac4118b2682
2019-09-30 09:04:35 +02:00
|
|
|
// Availability of this module in APEXes. Only the listed APEXes can include this module.
|
|
|
|
// "//apex_available:anyapex" is a pseudo APEX name that matches to any APEX.
|
|
|
|
// "//apex_available:platform" refers to non-APEX partitions like "system.img".
|
|
|
|
// Default is ["//apex_available:platform", "//apex_available:anyapex"].
|
|
|
|
// TODO(b/128708192) change the default to ["//apex_available:platform"]
|
|
|
|
Apex_available []string
|
|
|
|
|
Don't create unnecessary APEX variations
This change fixes a problem that APEX variations are created for the
modules that actually shouldn't built for any APEX. For example,
consider this case.
apex { name: "myapex", native_shared_libs: ["mylib"],}
cc_library { name: "mylib", shared_libs: ["libfoo#10"],}
cc_library { name: "libfoo",
shared_libs: ["libbar"],
stubs: { versions: ["10"], }, }
cc_library { name: "libbar", ...}
Before this change, both the stubs and non-stubs variations of libfoo
were mutated with apexMuator, which is incorrect for the non-stubs
varia; there is no dependency chain from the apex "myapex" to the
non-stubs variation, but to the stubs variation due to the #10 syntax.
This was happening becauses we used the name of the module to determine
whether it should be built for APEX or not. Both stubs and non-stubs
variations have the same module name "libfoo".
Fixing this issue by recording the list of APEX variations required
directly on the module. So, the stubs variation of libfoo has myapex in
its apex variations list, but the non-stubs variation doesn't, and thus
apexMutator does not pick up the non-stubs variation.
Test: m (apex_test updated and passing)
Test: cherry-pick ag/5747464 and m
Change-Id: I31e618626809a828a55fff513ef5f81f79637afa
2018-12-10 17:35:25 +01:00
|
|
|
// Name of the apex variant that this module is mutated into
|
2018-10-02 17:38:19 +02:00
|
|
|
ApexName string `blueprint:"mutated"`
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
// Provides default implementation for the ApexModule interface. APEX-aware
|
|
|
|
// modules are expected to include this struct and call InitApexModule().
|
|
|
|
type ApexModuleBase struct {
|
|
|
|
ApexProperties ApexProperties
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
canHaveApexVariants bool
|
2019-06-04 00:07:03 +02:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
apexVariationsLock sync.Mutex // protects apexVariations during parallel apexDepsMutator
|
|
|
|
apexVariations []string
|
2018-10-02 17:38:19 +02:00
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
func (m *ApexModuleBase) apexModuleBase() *ApexModuleBase {
|
|
|
|
return m
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
func (m *ApexModuleBase) BuildForApex(apexName string) {
|
2019-06-04 00:07:03 +02:00
|
|
|
m.apexVariationsLock.Lock()
|
|
|
|
defer m.apexVariationsLock.Unlock()
|
Don't create unnecessary APEX variations
This change fixes a problem that APEX variations are created for the
modules that actually shouldn't built for any APEX. For example,
consider this case.
apex { name: "myapex", native_shared_libs: ["mylib"],}
cc_library { name: "mylib", shared_libs: ["libfoo#10"],}
cc_library { name: "libfoo",
shared_libs: ["libbar"],
stubs: { versions: ["10"], }, }
cc_library { name: "libbar", ...}
Before this change, both the stubs and non-stubs variations of libfoo
were mutated with apexMuator, which is incorrect for the non-stubs
varia; there is no dependency chain from the apex "myapex" to the
non-stubs variation, but to the stubs variation due to the #10 syntax.
This was happening becauses we used the name of the module to determine
whether it should be built for APEX or not. Both stubs and non-stubs
variations have the same module name "libfoo".
Fixing this issue by recording the list of APEX variations required
directly on the module. So, the stubs variation of libfoo has myapex in
its apex variations list, but the non-stubs variation doesn't, and thus
apexMutator does not pick up the non-stubs variation.
Test: m (apex_test updated and passing)
Test: cherry-pick ag/5747464 and m
Change-Id: I31e618626809a828a55fff513ef5f81f79637afa
2018-12-10 17:35:25 +01:00
|
|
|
if !InList(apexName, m.apexVariations) {
|
|
|
|
m.apexVariations = append(m.apexVariations, apexName)
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
func (m *ApexModuleBase) ApexName() string {
|
|
|
|
return m.ApexProperties.ApexName
|
2018-10-02 17:38:19 +02:00
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
func (m *ApexModuleBase) IsForPlatform() bool {
|
|
|
|
return m.ApexProperties.ApexName == ""
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
Don't create unnecessary APEX variations
This change fixes a problem that APEX variations are created for the
modules that actually shouldn't built for any APEX. For example,
consider this case.
apex { name: "myapex", native_shared_libs: ["mylib"],}
cc_library { name: "mylib", shared_libs: ["libfoo#10"],}
cc_library { name: "libfoo",
shared_libs: ["libbar"],
stubs: { versions: ["10"], }, }
cc_library { name: "libbar", ...}
Before this change, both the stubs and non-stubs variations of libfoo
were mutated with apexMuator, which is incorrect for the non-stubs
varia; there is no dependency chain from the apex "myapex" to the
non-stubs variation, but to the stubs variation due to the #10 syntax.
This was happening becauses we used the name of the module to determine
whether it should be built for APEX or not. Both stubs and non-stubs
variations have the same module name "libfoo".
Fixing this issue by recording the list of APEX variations required
directly on the module. So, the stubs variation of libfoo has myapex in
its apex variations list, but the non-stubs variation doesn't, and thus
apexMutator does not pick up the non-stubs variation.
Test: m (apex_test updated and passing)
Test: cherry-pick ag/5747464 and m
Change-Id: I31e618626809a828a55fff513ef5f81f79637afa
2018-12-10 17:35:25 +01:00
|
|
|
func (m *ApexModuleBase) setApexName(apexName string) {
|
|
|
|
m.ApexProperties.ApexName = apexName
|
2018-10-02 17:38:19 +02:00
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
func (m *ApexModuleBase) CanHaveApexVariants() bool {
|
|
|
|
return m.canHaveApexVariants
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
func (m *ApexModuleBase) IsInstallableToApex() bool {
|
|
|
|
// should be overriden if needed
|
|
|
|
return false
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
Add apex_available to control the availablity of a module to APEXes
apex_available property controls the availability of a module to APEXes.
For example, `apex_available: ["myapex", "otherapex"]` makes the module
available only to the two APEXes: myapex and otherapex, and nothing
else, even to the platform.
If the module is intended to be available to any APEX, then a pseudo
name "//apex_available:anyapex" can be used.
If the module is intended to be available to the platform, then another
pseudo name "//apex_available:platform" is used.
For now, if unspecified, this property defaults to ["//apex_available:platform",
"//apex_available:anyapex"], which means the module is available to everybody.
This will be reduced to ["//apex_available:platform"], when marking for
apex_available for existing modules are finished.
Bug: 139870423
Bug: 128708192
Test: m
Change-Id: Id4b233c3056c7858f984cbf9427cfac4118b2682
2019-09-30 09:04:35 +02:00
|
|
|
const (
|
|
|
|
availableToPlatform = "//apex_available:platform"
|
|
|
|
availableToAnyApex = "//apex_available:anyapex"
|
|
|
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
2019-10-07 08:47:24 +02:00
|
|
|
func CheckAvailableForApex(what string, apex_available []string) bool {
|
|
|
|
if len(apex_available) == 0 {
|
Add apex_available to control the availablity of a module to APEXes
apex_available property controls the availability of a module to APEXes.
For example, `apex_available: ["myapex", "otherapex"]` makes the module
available only to the two APEXes: myapex and otherapex, and nothing
else, even to the platform.
If the module is intended to be available to any APEX, then a pseudo
name "//apex_available:anyapex" can be used.
If the module is intended to be available to the platform, then another
pseudo name "//apex_available:platform" is used.
For now, if unspecified, this property defaults to ["//apex_available:platform",
"//apex_available:anyapex"], which means the module is available to everybody.
This will be reduced to ["//apex_available:platform"], when marking for
apex_available for existing modules are finished.
Bug: 139870423
Bug: 128708192
Test: m
Change-Id: Id4b233c3056c7858f984cbf9427cfac4118b2682
2019-09-30 09:04:35 +02:00
|
|
|
// apex_available defaults to ["//apex_available:platform", "//apex_available:anyapex"],
|
|
|
|
// which means 'available to everybody'.
|
|
|
|
return true
|
|
|
|
}
|
2019-10-07 08:47:24 +02:00
|
|
|
return InList(what, apex_available) ||
|
|
|
|
(what != availableToPlatform && InList(availableToAnyApex, apex_available))
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
func (m *ApexModuleBase) AvailableFor(what string) bool {
|
|
|
|
return CheckAvailableForApex(what, m.ApexProperties.Apex_available)
|
Add apex_available to control the availablity of a module to APEXes
apex_available property controls the availability of a module to APEXes.
For example, `apex_available: ["myapex", "otherapex"]` makes the module
available only to the two APEXes: myapex and otherapex, and nothing
else, even to the platform.
If the module is intended to be available to any APEX, then a pseudo
name "//apex_available:anyapex" can be used.
If the module is intended to be available to the platform, then another
pseudo name "//apex_available:platform" is used.
For now, if unspecified, this property defaults to ["//apex_available:platform",
"//apex_available:anyapex"], which means the module is available to everybody.
This will be reduced to ["//apex_available:platform"], when marking for
apex_available for existing modules are finished.
Bug: 139870423
Bug: 128708192
Test: m
Change-Id: Id4b233c3056c7858f984cbf9427cfac4118b2682
2019-09-30 09:04:35 +02:00
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
func (m *ApexModuleBase) checkApexAvailableProperty(mctx BaseModuleContext) {
|
|
|
|
for _, n := range m.ApexProperties.Apex_available {
|
|
|
|
if n == availableToPlatform || n == availableToAnyApex {
|
|
|
|
continue
|
|
|
|
}
|
2019-10-08 11:40:51 +02:00
|
|
|
if !mctx.OtherModuleExists(n) && !mctx.Config().AllowMissingDependencies() {
|
Add apex_available to control the availablity of a module to APEXes
apex_available property controls the availability of a module to APEXes.
For example, `apex_available: ["myapex", "otherapex"]` makes the module
available only to the two APEXes: myapex and otherapex, and nothing
else, even to the platform.
If the module is intended to be available to any APEX, then a pseudo
name "//apex_available:anyapex" can be used.
If the module is intended to be available to the platform, then another
pseudo name "//apex_available:platform" is used.
For now, if unspecified, this property defaults to ["//apex_available:platform",
"//apex_available:anyapex"], which means the module is available to everybody.
This will be reduced to ["//apex_available:platform"], when marking for
apex_available for existing modules are finished.
Bug: 139870423
Bug: 128708192
Test: m
Change-Id: Id4b233c3056c7858f984cbf9427cfac4118b2682
2019-09-30 09:04:35 +02:00
|
|
|
mctx.PropertyErrorf("apex_available", "%q is not a valid module name", n)
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
Don't create unnecessary APEX variations
This change fixes a problem that APEX variations are created for the
modules that actually shouldn't built for any APEX. For example,
consider this case.
apex { name: "myapex", native_shared_libs: ["mylib"],}
cc_library { name: "mylib", shared_libs: ["libfoo#10"],}
cc_library { name: "libfoo",
shared_libs: ["libbar"],
stubs: { versions: ["10"], }, }
cc_library { name: "libbar", ...}
Before this change, both the stubs and non-stubs variations of libfoo
were mutated with apexMuator, which is incorrect for the non-stubs
varia; there is no dependency chain from the apex "myapex" to the
non-stubs variation, but to the stubs variation due to the #10 syntax.
This was happening becauses we used the name of the module to determine
whether it should be built for APEX or not. Both stubs and non-stubs
variations have the same module name "libfoo".
Fixing this issue by recording the list of APEX variations required
directly on the module. So, the stubs variation of libfoo has myapex in
its apex variations list, but the non-stubs variation doesn't, and thus
apexMutator does not pick up the non-stubs variation.
Test: m (apex_test updated and passing)
Test: cherry-pick ag/5747464 and m
Change-Id: I31e618626809a828a55fff513ef5f81f79637afa
2018-12-10 17:35:25 +01:00
|
|
|
func (m *ApexModuleBase) CreateApexVariations(mctx BottomUpMutatorContext) []blueprint.Module {
|
|
|
|
if len(m.apexVariations) > 0 {
|
Add apex_available to control the availablity of a module to APEXes
apex_available property controls the availability of a module to APEXes.
For example, `apex_available: ["myapex", "otherapex"]` makes the module
available only to the two APEXes: myapex and otherapex, and nothing
else, even to the platform.
If the module is intended to be available to any APEX, then a pseudo
name "//apex_available:anyapex" can be used.
If the module is intended to be available to the platform, then another
pseudo name "//apex_available:platform" is used.
For now, if unspecified, this property defaults to ["//apex_available:platform",
"//apex_available:anyapex"], which means the module is available to everybody.
This will be reduced to ["//apex_available:platform"], when marking for
apex_available for existing modules are finished.
Bug: 139870423
Bug: 128708192
Test: m
Change-Id: Id4b233c3056c7858f984cbf9427cfac4118b2682
2019-09-30 09:04:35 +02:00
|
|
|
m.checkApexAvailableProperty(mctx)
|
2019-06-04 00:07:03 +02:00
|
|
|
sort.Strings(m.apexVariations)
|
Add apex_available to control the availablity of a module to APEXes
apex_available property controls the availability of a module to APEXes.
For example, `apex_available: ["myapex", "otherapex"]` makes the module
available only to the two APEXes: myapex and otherapex, and nothing
else, even to the platform.
If the module is intended to be available to any APEX, then a pseudo
name "//apex_available:anyapex" can be used.
If the module is intended to be available to the platform, then another
pseudo name "//apex_available:platform" is used.
For now, if unspecified, this property defaults to ["//apex_available:platform",
"//apex_available:anyapex"], which means the module is available to everybody.
This will be reduced to ["//apex_available:platform"], when marking for
apex_available for existing modules are finished.
Bug: 139870423
Bug: 128708192
Test: m
Change-Id: Id4b233c3056c7858f984cbf9427cfac4118b2682
2019-09-30 09:04:35 +02:00
|
|
|
variations := []string{}
|
2019-10-07 08:47:24 +02:00
|
|
|
availableForPlatform := mctx.Module().(ApexModule).AvailableFor(availableToPlatform)
|
Add apex_available to control the availablity of a module to APEXes
apex_available property controls the availability of a module to APEXes.
For example, `apex_available: ["myapex", "otherapex"]` makes the module
available only to the two APEXes: myapex and otherapex, and nothing
else, even to the platform.
If the module is intended to be available to any APEX, then a pseudo
name "//apex_available:anyapex" can be used.
If the module is intended to be available to the platform, then another
pseudo name "//apex_available:platform" is used.
For now, if unspecified, this property defaults to ["//apex_available:platform",
"//apex_available:anyapex"], which means the module is available to everybody.
This will be reduced to ["//apex_available:platform"], when marking for
apex_available for existing modules are finished.
Bug: 139870423
Bug: 128708192
Test: m
Change-Id: Id4b233c3056c7858f984cbf9427cfac4118b2682
2019-09-30 09:04:35 +02:00
|
|
|
if availableForPlatform {
|
|
|
|
variations = append(variations, "") // Original variation for platform
|
|
|
|
}
|
2018-12-26 08:32:21 +01:00
|
|
|
variations = append(variations, m.apexVariations...)
|
|
|
|
|
Don't create unnecessary APEX variations
This change fixes a problem that APEX variations are created for the
modules that actually shouldn't built for any APEX. For example,
consider this case.
apex { name: "myapex", native_shared_libs: ["mylib"],}
cc_library { name: "mylib", shared_libs: ["libfoo#10"],}
cc_library { name: "libfoo",
shared_libs: ["libbar"],
stubs: { versions: ["10"], }, }
cc_library { name: "libbar", ...}
Before this change, both the stubs and non-stubs variations of libfoo
were mutated with apexMuator, which is incorrect for the non-stubs
varia; there is no dependency chain from the apex "myapex" to the
non-stubs variation, but to the stubs variation due to the #10 syntax.
This was happening becauses we used the name of the module to determine
whether it should be built for APEX or not. Both stubs and non-stubs
variations have the same module name "libfoo".
Fixing this issue by recording the list of APEX variations required
directly on the module. So, the stubs variation of libfoo has myapex in
its apex variations list, but the non-stubs variation doesn't, and thus
apexMutator does not pick up the non-stubs variation.
Test: m (apex_test updated and passing)
Test: cherry-pick ag/5747464 and m
Change-Id: I31e618626809a828a55fff513ef5f81f79637afa
2018-12-10 17:35:25 +01:00
|
|
|
modules := mctx.CreateVariations(variations...)
|
|
|
|
for i, m := range modules {
|
Add apex_available to control the availablity of a module to APEXes
apex_available property controls the availability of a module to APEXes.
For example, `apex_available: ["myapex", "otherapex"]` makes the module
available only to the two APEXes: myapex and otherapex, and nothing
else, even to the platform.
If the module is intended to be available to any APEX, then a pseudo
name "//apex_available:anyapex" can be used.
If the module is intended to be available to the platform, then another
pseudo name "//apex_available:platform" is used.
For now, if unspecified, this property defaults to ["//apex_available:platform",
"//apex_available:anyapex"], which means the module is available to everybody.
This will be reduced to ["//apex_available:platform"], when marking for
apex_available for existing modules are finished.
Bug: 139870423
Bug: 128708192
Test: m
Change-Id: Id4b233c3056c7858f984cbf9427cfac4118b2682
2019-09-30 09:04:35 +02:00
|
|
|
if availableForPlatform && i == 0 {
|
2018-12-26 08:32:21 +01:00
|
|
|
continue
|
Don't create unnecessary APEX variations
This change fixes a problem that APEX variations are created for the
modules that actually shouldn't built for any APEX. For example,
consider this case.
apex { name: "myapex", native_shared_libs: ["mylib"],}
cc_library { name: "mylib", shared_libs: ["libfoo#10"],}
cc_library { name: "libfoo",
shared_libs: ["libbar"],
stubs: { versions: ["10"], }, }
cc_library { name: "libbar", ...}
Before this change, both the stubs and non-stubs variations of libfoo
were mutated with apexMuator, which is incorrect for the non-stubs
varia; there is no dependency chain from the apex "myapex" to the
non-stubs variation, but to the stubs variation due to the #10 syntax.
This was happening becauses we used the name of the module to determine
whether it should be built for APEX or not. Both stubs and non-stubs
variations have the same module name "libfoo".
Fixing this issue by recording the list of APEX variations required
directly on the module. So, the stubs variation of libfoo has myapex in
its apex variations list, but the non-stubs variation doesn't, and thus
apexMutator does not pick up the non-stubs variation.
Test: m (apex_test updated and passing)
Test: cherry-pick ag/5747464 and m
Change-Id: I31e618626809a828a55fff513ef5f81f79637afa
2018-12-10 17:35:25 +01:00
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
m.(ApexModule).setApexName(variations[i])
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
return modules
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
return nil
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
var apexData OncePer
|
|
|
|
var apexNamesMapMutex sync.Mutex
|
2019-02-04 20:22:08 +01:00
|
|
|
var apexNamesKey = NewOnceKey("apexNames")
|
Don't create unnecessary APEX variations
This change fixes a problem that APEX variations are created for the
modules that actually shouldn't built for any APEX. For example,
consider this case.
apex { name: "myapex", native_shared_libs: ["mylib"],}
cc_library { name: "mylib", shared_libs: ["libfoo#10"],}
cc_library { name: "libfoo",
shared_libs: ["libbar"],
stubs: { versions: ["10"], }, }
cc_library { name: "libbar", ...}
Before this change, both the stubs and non-stubs variations of libfoo
were mutated with apexMuator, which is incorrect for the non-stubs
varia; there is no dependency chain from the apex "myapex" to the
non-stubs variation, but to the stubs variation due to the #10 syntax.
This was happening becauses we used the name of the module to determine
whether it should be built for APEX or not. Both stubs and non-stubs
variations have the same module name "libfoo".
Fixing this issue by recording the list of APEX variations required
directly on the module. So, the stubs variation of libfoo has myapex in
its apex variations list, but the non-stubs variation doesn't, and thus
apexMutator does not pick up the non-stubs variation.
Test: m (apex_test updated and passing)
Test: cherry-pick ag/5747464 and m
Change-Id: I31e618626809a828a55fff513ef5f81f79637afa
2018-12-10 17:35:25 +01:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
// This structure maintains the global mapping in between modules and APEXes.
|
|
|
|
// Examples:
|
Stubs variant is used when building for APEX
When a native module is built for an APEX and is depending on a native
library having stubs (i.e. stubs.versions property is set), the stubs
variant is used unless the dependent lib is directly included in the
same APEX with the depending module.
Example:
apex {
name: "myapex",
native_shared_libs: ["libX", "libY"],
}
cc_library {
name: "libX",
shared_libs: ["libY", "libZ"],
}
cc_library {
name: "libY",
stubs: { versions: ["1", "2"], },
}
cc_library {
name: "libZ",
stubs: { versions: ["1", "2"], },
}
In this case, libX is linking to the impl variant of libY (that provides
private APIs) while libY is linking to the version 2 stubs of libZ. This is
because libY is directly included in the same apex via
native_shared_libs property, but libZ isn't.
Bug: 112672359
Test: apex_test added
Change-Id: If9871b70dc74a06bd828dd4cd1aeebd2e68b837c
2018-11-18 10:02:45 +01:00
|
|
|
//
|
Don't create unnecessary APEX variations
This change fixes a problem that APEX variations are created for the
modules that actually shouldn't built for any APEX. For example,
consider this case.
apex { name: "myapex", native_shared_libs: ["mylib"],}
cc_library { name: "mylib", shared_libs: ["libfoo#10"],}
cc_library { name: "libfoo",
shared_libs: ["libbar"],
stubs: { versions: ["10"], }, }
cc_library { name: "libbar", ...}
Before this change, both the stubs and non-stubs variations of libfoo
were mutated with apexMuator, which is incorrect for the non-stubs
varia; there is no dependency chain from the apex "myapex" to the
non-stubs variation, but to the stubs variation due to the #10 syntax.
This was happening becauses we used the name of the module to determine
whether it should be built for APEX or not. Both stubs and non-stubs
variations have the same module name "libfoo".
Fixing this issue by recording the list of APEX variations required
directly on the module. So, the stubs variation of libfoo has myapex in
its apex variations list, but the non-stubs variation doesn't, and thus
apexMutator does not pick up the non-stubs variation.
Test: m (apex_test updated and passing)
Test: cherry-pick ag/5747464 and m
Change-Id: I31e618626809a828a55fff513ef5f81f79637afa
2018-12-10 17:35:25 +01:00
|
|
|
// apexNamesMap()["foo"]["bar"] == true: module foo is directly depended on by APEX bar
|
|
|
|
// apexNamesMap()["foo"]["bar"] == false: module foo is indirectly depended on by APEX bar
|
|
|
|
// apexNamesMap()["foo"]["bar"] doesn't exist: foo is not built for APEX bar
|
|
|
|
func apexNamesMap() map[string]map[string]bool {
|
2019-02-04 20:22:08 +01:00
|
|
|
return apexData.Once(apexNamesKey, func() interface{} {
|
Stubs variant is used when building for APEX
When a native module is built for an APEX and is depending on a native
library having stubs (i.e. stubs.versions property is set), the stubs
variant is used unless the dependent lib is directly included in the
same APEX with the depending module.
Example:
apex {
name: "myapex",
native_shared_libs: ["libX", "libY"],
}
cc_library {
name: "libX",
shared_libs: ["libY", "libZ"],
}
cc_library {
name: "libY",
stubs: { versions: ["1", "2"], },
}
cc_library {
name: "libZ",
stubs: { versions: ["1", "2"], },
}
In this case, libX is linking to the impl variant of libY (that provides
private APIs) while libY is linking to the version 2 stubs of libZ. This is
because libY is directly included in the same apex via
native_shared_libs property, but libZ isn't.
Bug: 112672359
Test: apex_test added
Change-Id: If9871b70dc74a06bd828dd4cd1aeebd2e68b837c
2018-11-18 10:02:45 +01:00
|
|
|
return make(map[string]map[string]bool)
|
|
|
|
}).(map[string]map[string]bool)
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
Don't create unnecessary APEX variations
This change fixes a problem that APEX variations are created for the
modules that actually shouldn't built for any APEX. For example,
consider this case.
apex { name: "myapex", native_shared_libs: ["mylib"],}
cc_library { name: "mylib", shared_libs: ["libfoo#10"],}
cc_library { name: "libfoo",
shared_libs: ["libbar"],
stubs: { versions: ["10"], }, }
cc_library { name: "libbar", ...}
Before this change, both the stubs and non-stubs variations of libfoo
were mutated with apexMuator, which is incorrect for the non-stubs
varia; there is no dependency chain from the apex "myapex" to the
non-stubs variation, but to the stubs variation due to the #10 syntax.
This was happening becauses we used the name of the module to determine
whether it should be built for APEX or not. Both stubs and non-stubs
variations have the same module name "libfoo".
Fixing this issue by recording the list of APEX variations required
directly on the module. So, the stubs variation of libfoo has myapex in
its apex variations list, but the non-stubs variation doesn't, and thus
apexMutator does not pick up the non-stubs variation.
Test: m (apex_test updated and passing)
Test: cherry-pick ag/5747464 and m
Change-Id: I31e618626809a828a55fff513ef5f81f79637afa
2018-12-10 17:35:25 +01:00
|
|
|
// Update the map to mark that a module named moduleName is directly or indirectly
|
|
|
|
// depended on by an APEX named apexName. Directly depending means that a module
|
|
|
|
// is explicitly listed in the build definition of the APEX via properties like
|
|
|
|
// native_shared_libs, java_libs, etc.
|
|
|
|
func UpdateApexDependency(apexName string, moduleName string, directDep bool) {
|
|
|
|
apexNamesMapMutex.Lock()
|
|
|
|
defer apexNamesMapMutex.Unlock()
|
|
|
|
apexNames, ok := apexNamesMap()[moduleName]
|
Stubs variant is used when building for APEX
When a native module is built for an APEX and is depending on a native
library having stubs (i.e. stubs.versions property is set), the stubs
variant is used unless the dependent lib is directly included in the
same APEX with the depending module.
Example:
apex {
name: "myapex",
native_shared_libs: ["libX", "libY"],
}
cc_library {
name: "libX",
shared_libs: ["libY", "libZ"],
}
cc_library {
name: "libY",
stubs: { versions: ["1", "2"], },
}
cc_library {
name: "libZ",
stubs: { versions: ["1", "2"], },
}
In this case, libX is linking to the impl variant of libY (that provides
private APIs) while libY is linking to the version 2 stubs of libZ. This is
because libY is directly included in the same apex via
native_shared_libs property, but libZ isn't.
Bug: 112672359
Test: apex_test added
Change-Id: If9871b70dc74a06bd828dd4cd1aeebd2e68b837c
2018-11-18 10:02:45 +01:00
|
|
|
if !ok {
|
Don't create unnecessary APEX variations
This change fixes a problem that APEX variations are created for the
modules that actually shouldn't built for any APEX. For example,
consider this case.
apex { name: "myapex", native_shared_libs: ["mylib"],}
cc_library { name: "mylib", shared_libs: ["libfoo#10"],}
cc_library { name: "libfoo",
shared_libs: ["libbar"],
stubs: { versions: ["10"], }, }
cc_library { name: "libbar", ...}
Before this change, both the stubs and non-stubs variations of libfoo
were mutated with apexMuator, which is incorrect for the non-stubs
varia; there is no dependency chain from the apex "myapex" to the
non-stubs variation, but to the stubs variation due to the #10 syntax.
This was happening becauses we used the name of the module to determine
whether it should be built for APEX or not. Both stubs and non-stubs
variations have the same module name "libfoo".
Fixing this issue by recording the list of APEX variations required
directly on the module. So, the stubs variation of libfoo has myapex in
its apex variations list, but the non-stubs variation doesn't, and thus
apexMutator does not pick up the non-stubs variation.
Test: m (apex_test updated and passing)
Test: cherry-pick ag/5747464 and m
Change-Id: I31e618626809a828a55fff513ef5f81f79637afa
2018-12-10 17:35:25 +01:00
|
|
|
apexNames = make(map[string]bool)
|
|
|
|
apexNamesMap()[moduleName] = apexNames
|
Stubs variant is used when building for APEX
When a native module is built for an APEX and is depending on a native
library having stubs (i.e. stubs.versions property is set), the stubs
variant is used unless the dependent lib is directly included in the
same APEX with the depending module.
Example:
apex {
name: "myapex",
native_shared_libs: ["libX", "libY"],
}
cc_library {
name: "libX",
shared_libs: ["libY", "libZ"],
}
cc_library {
name: "libY",
stubs: { versions: ["1", "2"], },
}
cc_library {
name: "libZ",
stubs: { versions: ["1", "2"], },
}
In this case, libX is linking to the impl variant of libY (that provides
private APIs) while libY is linking to the version 2 stubs of libZ. This is
because libY is directly included in the same apex via
native_shared_libs property, but libZ isn't.
Bug: 112672359
Test: apex_test added
Change-Id: If9871b70dc74a06bd828dd4cd1aeebd2e68b837c
2018-11-18 10:02:45 +01:00
|
|
|
}
|
Don't create unnecessary APEX variations
This change fixes a problem that APEX variations are created for the
modules that actually shouldn't built for any APEX. For example,
consider this case.
apex { name: "myapex", native_shared_libs: ["mylib"],}
cc_library { name: "mylib", shared_libs: ["libfoo#10"],}
cc_library { name: "libfoo",
shared_libs: ["libbar"],
stubs: { versions: ["10"], }, }
cc_library { name: "libbar", ...}
Before this change, both the stubs and non-stubs variations of libfoo
were mutated with apexMuator, which is incorrect for the non-stubs
varia; there is no dependency chain from the apex "myapex" to the
non-stubs variation, but to the stubs variation due to the #10 syntax.
This was happening becauses we used the name of the module to determine
whether it should be built for APEX or not. Both stubs and non-stubs
variations have the same module name "libfoo".
Fixing this issue by recording the list of APEX variations required
directly on the module. So, the stubs variation of libfoo has myapex in
its apex variations list, but the non-stubs variation doesn't, and thus
apexMutator does not pick up the non-stubs variation.
Test: m (apex_test updated and passing)
Test: cherry-pick ag/5747464 and m
Change-Id: I31e618626809a828a55fff513ef5f81f79637afa
2018-12-10 17:35:25 +01:00
|
|
|
apexNames[apexName] = apexNames[apexName] || directDep
|
Stubs variant is used when building for APEX
When a native module is built for an APEX and is depending on a native
library having stubs (i.e. stubs.versions property is set), the stubs
variant is used unless the dependent lib is directly included in the
same APEX with the depending module.
Example:
apex {
name: "myapex",
native_shared_libs: ["libX", "libY"],
}
cc_library {
name: "libX",
shared_libs: ["libY", "libZ"],
}
cc_library {
name: "libY",
stubs: { versions: ["1", "2"], },
}
cc_library {
name: "libZ",
stubs: { versions: ["1", "2"], },
}
In this case, libX is linking to the impl variant of libY (that provides
private APIs) while libY is linking to the version 2 stubs of libZ. This is
because libY is directly included in the same apex via
native_shared_libs property, but libZ isn't.
Bug: 112672359
Test: apex_test added
Change-Id: If9871b70dc74a06bd828dd4cd1aeebd2e68b837c
2018-11-18 10:02:45 +01:00
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
Don't create unnecessary APEX variations
This change fixes a problem that APEX variations are created for the
modules that actually shouldn't built for any APEX. For example,
consider this case.
apex { name: "myapex", native_shared_libs: ["mylib"],}
cc_library { name: "mylib", shared_libs: ["libfoo#10"],}
cc_library { name: "libfoo",
shared_libs: ["libbar"],
stubs: { versions: ["10"], }, }
cc_library { name: "libbar", ...}
Before this change, both the stubs and non-stubs variations of libfoo
were mutated with apexMuator, which is incorrect for the non-stubs
varia; there is no dependency chain from the apex "myapex" to the
non-stubs variation, but to the stubs variation due to the #10 syntax.
This was happening becauses we used the name of the module to determine
whether it should be built for APEX or not. Both stubs and non-stubs
variations have the same module name "libfoo".
Fixing this issue by recording the list of APEX variations required
directly on the module. So, the stubs variation of libfoo has myapex in
its apex variations list, but the non-stubs variation doesn't, and thus
apexMutator does not pick up the non-stubs variation.
Test: m (apex_test updated and passing)
Test: cherry-pick ag/5747464 and m
Change-Id: I31e618626809a828a55fff513ef5f81f79637afa
2018-12-10 17:35:25 +01:00
|
|
|
// Tests whether a module named moduleName is directly depended on by an APEX
|
|
|
|
// named apexName.
|
|
|
|
func DirectlyInApex(apexName string, moduleName string) bool {
|
|
|
|
apexNamesMapMutex.Lock()
|
|
|
|
defer apexNamesMapMutex.Unlock()
|
|
|
|
if apexNames, ok := apexNamesMap()[moduleName]; ok {
|
|
|
|
return apexNames[apexName]
|
Stubs variant is used when building for APEX
When a native module is built for an APEX and is depending on a native
library having stubs (i.e. stubs.versions property is set), the stubs
variant is used unless the dependent lib is directly included in the
same APEX with the depending module.
Example:
apex {
name: "myapex",
native_shared_libs: ["libX", "libY"],
}
cc_library {
name: "libX",
shared_libs: ["libY", "libZ"],
}
cc_library {
name: "libY",
stubs: { versions: ["1", "2"], },
}
cc_library {
name: "libZ",
stubs: { versions: ["1", "2"], },
}
In this case, libX is linking to the impl variant of libY (that provides
private APIs) while libY is linking to the version 2 stubs of libZ. This is
because libY is directly included in the same apex via
native_shared_libs property, but libZ isn't.
Bug: 112672359
Test: apex_test added
Change-Id: If9871b70dc74a06bd828dd4cd1aeebd2e68b837c
2018-11-18 10:02:45 +01:00
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
return false
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
2019-01-15 20:53:23 +01:00
|
|
|
type hostContext interface {
|
|
|
|
Host() bool
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
Don't create unnecessary APEX variations
This change fixes a problem that APEX variations are created for the
modules that actually shouldn't built for any APEX. For example,
consider this case.
apex { name: "myapex", native_shared_libs: ["mylib"],}
cc_library { name: "mylib", shared_libs: ["libfoo#10"],}
cc_library { name: "libfoo",
shared_libs: ["libbar"],
stubs: { versions: ["10"], }, }
cc_library { name: "libbar", ...}
Before this change, both the stubs and non-stubs variations of libfoo
were mutated with apexMuator, which is incorrect for the non-stubs
varia; there is no dependency chain from the apex "myapex" to the
non-stubs variation, but to the stubs variation due to the #10 syntax.
This was happening becauses we used the name of the module to determine
whether it should be built for APEX or not. Both stubs and non-stubs
variations have the same module name "libfoo".
Fixing this issue by recording the list of APEX variations required
directly on the module. So, the stubs variation of libfoo has myapex in
its apex variations list, but the non-stubs variation doesn't, and thus
apexMutator does not pick up the non-stubs variation.
Test: m (apex_test updated and passing)
Test: cherry-pick ag/5747464 and m
Change-Id: I31e618626809a828a55fff513ef5f81f79637afa
2018-12-10 17:35:25 +01:00
|
|
|
// Tests whether a module named moduleName is directly depended on by any APEX.
|
2019-01-15 20:53:23 +01:00
|
|
|
func DirectlyInAnyApex(ctx hostContext, moduleName string) bool {
|
|
|
|
if ctx.Host() {
|
|
|
|
// Host has no APEX.
|
|
|
|
return false
|
|
|
|
}
|
Don't create unnecessary APEX variations
This change fixes a problem that APEX variations are created for the
modules that actually shouldn't built for any APEX. For example,
consider this case.
apex { name: "myapex", native_shared_libs: ["mylib"],}
cc_library { name: "mylib", shared_libs: ["libfoo#10"],}
cc_library { name: "libfoo",
shared_libs: ["libbar"],
stubs: { versions: ["10"], }, }
cc_library { name: "libbar", ...}
Before this change, both the stubs and non-stubs variations of libfoo
were mutated with apexMuator, which is incorrect for the non-stubs
varia; there is no dependency chain from the apex "myapex" to the
non-stubs variation, but to the stubs variation due to the #10 syntax.
This was happening becauses we used the name of the module to determine
whether it should be built for APEX or not. Both stubs and non-stubs
variations have the same module name "libfoo".
Fixing this issue by recording the list of APEX variations required
directly on the module. So, the stubs variation of libfoo has myapex in
its apex variations list, but the non-stubs variation doesn't, and thus
apexMutator does not pick up the non-stubs variation.
Test: m (apex_test updated and passing)
Test: cherry-pick ag/5747464 and m
Change-Id: I31e618626809a828a55fff513ef5f81f79637afa
2018-12-10 17:35:25 +01:00
|
|
|
apexNamesMapMutex.Lock()
|
|
|
|
defer apexNamesMapMutex.Unlock()
|
|
|
|
if apexNames, ok := apexNamesMap()[moduleName]; ok {
|
|
|
|
for an := range apexNames {
|
|
|
|
if apexNames[an] {
|
Stubs variant is used when building for APEX
When a native module is built for an APEX and is depending on a native
library having stubs (i.e. stubs.versions property is set), the stubs
variant is used unless the dependent lib is directly included in the
same APEX with the depending module.
Example:
apex {
name: "myapex",
native_shared_libs: ["libX", "libY"],
}
cc_library {
name: "libX",
shared_libs: ["libY", "libZ"],
}
cc_library {
name: "libY",
stubs: { versions: ["1", "2"], },
}
cc_library {
name: "libZ",
stubs: { versions: ["1", "2"], },
}
In this case, libX is linking to the impl variant of libY (that provides
private APIs) while libY is linking to the version 2 stubs of libZ. This is
because libY is directly included in the same apex via
native_shared_libs property, but libZ isn't.
Bug: 112672359
Test: apex_test added
Change-Id: If9871b70dc74a06bd828dd4cd1aeebd2e68b837c
2018-11-18 10:02:45 +01:00
|
|
|
return true
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
return false
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
Don't create unnecessary APEX variations
This change fixes a problem that APEX variations are created for the
modules that actually shouldn't built for any APEX. For example,
consider this case.
apex { name: "myapex", native_shared_libs: ["mylib"],}
cc_library { name: "mylib", shared_libs: ["libfoo#10"],}
cc_library { name: "libfoo",
shared_libs: ["libbar"],
stubs: { versions: ["10"], }, }
cc_library { name: "libbar", ...}
Before this change, both the stubs and non-stubs variations of libfoo
were mutated with apexMuator, which is incorrect for the non-stubs
varia; there is no dependency chain from the apex "myapex" to the
non-stubs variation, but to the stubs variation due to the #10 syntax.
This was happening becauses we used the name of the module to determine
whether it should be built for APEX or not. Both stubs and non-stubs
variations have the same module name "libfoo".
Fixing this issue by recording the list of APEX variations required
directly on the module. So, the stubs variation of libfoo has myapex in
its apex variations list, but the non-stubs variation doesn't, and thus
apexMutator does not pick up the non-stubs variation.
Test: m (apex_test updated and passing)
Test: cherry-pick ag/5747464 and m
Change-Id: I31e618626809a828a55fff513ef5f81f79637afa
2018-12-10 17:35:25 +01:00
|
|
|
// Tests whether a module named module is depended on (including both
|
|
|
|
// direct and indirect dependencies) by any APEX.
|
|
|
|
func InAnyApex(moduleName string) bool {
|
|
|
|
apexNamesMapMutex.Lock()
|
|
|
|
defer apexNamesMapMutex.Unlock()
|
|
|
|
apexNames, ok := apexNamesMap()[moduleName]
|
|
|
|
return ok && len(apexNames) > 0
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
func GetApexesForModule(moduleName string) []string {
|
|
|
|
ret := []string{}
|
|
|
|
apexNamesMapMutex.Lock()
|
|
|
|
defer apexNamesMapMutex.Unlock()
|
|
|
|
if apexNames, ok := apexNamesMap()[moduleName]; ok {
|
|
|
|
for an := range apexNames {
|
|
|
|
ret = append(ret, an)
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
return ret
|
2018-12-07 15:08:36 +01:00
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
2018-10-02 17:38:19 +02:00
|
|
|
func InitApexModule(m ApexModule) {
|
|
|
|
base := m.apexModuleBase()
|
|
|
|
base.canHaveApexVariants = true
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
m.AddProperties(&base.ApexProperties)
|
|
|
|
}
|