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 reason the gtest failed was that we build a static library libgtest.a, which is linked with the gtest libjvm.so. With the changes in this PR, libgtest.a was being built using the `ld -r` + `objcopy --localize-hidden` method. This caused some weird issues with gcc, related to C++ code and the `COMDAT` object info. I failed to track down any proper solution, so instead I added a patch where the libraries that we explicitly declare as `STATIC_LIBRARIES` are linked as before, without the partial linking step. These libraries are only intended for internal consumption (that is, they are linked to and used by another, "external" library), and so the extra protection added by the partial linking is not really needed. It's a bit sad that this did not work, but it is no big deal. It won't affect files released in the image, and it will not be a regression as compared to now. ------------- PR Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/19478#issuecomment-2178961562
