On Wed, 3 May 2023 02:09:22 GMT, Jiangli Zhou <jian...@openjdk.org> wrote:
> This PR is branched from the makefile changes for > https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8303796 and contains the following for > handling the JDK/VM static libraries: > > - Create libjvm.a together with other JDK static libraries when building > 'static-libs-image' (or 'static-libs-bundles') target, include it in > 'images/static-libs/lib'; > - For libjvm.a specifically, exclude operator_new.o; > - Filter out "external" .o files (those are the .o files included from a > different JDK library and needed when creating the .so shared library only) > from .a libraries; That's to avoid linker errors due to the duplicate symbols > problems from the related .o files; > - Handle long arguments case for static build in > make/common/NativeCompilation.gmk; > - Address @erikj79's comment in > https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/pull/13709#discussion_r1180750185 for > LIBJLI_STATIC_EXCLUDE_OBJS; make/Main.gmk line 1060: > 1058: symbols-image: $(LIBS_TARGETS) $(LAUNCHER_TARGETS) > 1059: > 1060: static-libs-image: hotspot-static-libs $(STATIC_LIBS_TARGETS) Could we decouple `hotspot-static-libs` from `static-libs-image` somehow, please? `static-libs-image` is used by the `graal-builder-image` target and it would be good if it didn't include hotspot static libs as they are not needed for it. Would it be sufficient to just use `hotspot-static-libs` directly? Like: `make static-libs-image hotspot-static-libs`? Failing that, could we introduce a new target that produces both? ------------- PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/13768#discussion_r1183974910
