On Wed, 19 Jun 2024 15:15:43 GMT, Magnus Ihse Bursie <i...@openjdk.org> wrote:
>> This patch contains a set of changes to improve static builds. They will >> pave the way for implementing a full static-only java launcher. The changes >> here will: >> >> 1) Make sure non-exported symbols are made local in the static libraries. >> This means that the risk of symbol conflict is the same for static libraries >> as for dynamic libraries (i.e. in practice zero, as long as a consistent >> naming scheme is used for exported functions). >> >> 2) Remove the work-arounds to exclude duplicated symbols. >> >> 3) Fix some code in hotspot and the JDK libraries that did not work properly >> with a static java launcher. >> >> The latter fixes are copied from or inspired by the work done by >> @jianglizhou and her team as part of the Project Leyden [Hermetic >> Java](https://github.com/openjdk/leyden/tree/hermetic-java-runtime). > > Magnus Ihse Bursie has updated the pull request incrementally with one > additional commit since the last revision: > > Add dummy implementation of os::lookup_function for Windows The changes to the launcher look okay. The move from `ifdef STATIC_BUILD` to `JLI_IsStaticallyLinked` is quite nice. Having libjdwp link to libjvm was a surprise but I think okay. I think it would be useful to provide a brief summary on the when/where the static builds are tested to ensure that the changes don't bit rot. I realise we already have static builds but it isn't obvious where this is tested. src/hotspot/share/runtime/linkType.cpp line 36: > 34: return JNI_TRUE; > 35: #else > 36: return JNI_FALSE; bool != jboolean, I assume you don't want that. The naming is a bit unusual, a function that returns a boolean is usually name is_XXX, but maybe there is reason for this? ------------- PR Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/19478#issuecomment-2180635747 PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/19478#discussion_r1647480992
