On Thu, 16 Nov 2023 03:44:53 GMT, Phil Race <p...@openjdk.org> wrote:
>> I happened to ask around on the build-dev mailing lists about whether we >> include msvcp.dll with the JDK, here is Erik's response: >> >>> Back in JDK 8 when we used Visual Studio 2010, we used to not ship >>> msvcp*.dll. This changed when I added support for building with Visual >>> Studio 2013 [1] in JDK 9. In the patch for that bug I found this text: >>> >>>+ # If building with Visual Studio 2010, we can still use >>> _STATIC_CPPLIB to >>>+ # avoid bundling msvcpNNN.dll. Doesn't work with newer versions of >>> visual >>>+ # studio. >>> >>> So since we switched to Visual Studio 2013, we started to bundle >>> msvcp*.dll. It was only ever possible to not bundle it if you built with >>> Visual Studio 2010 (or older I suppose). It's pretty safe to say that >>> the current mainline JDK build requires msvcp.dll to be bundled. Looking >>> at the configure logic, configure will fail unless we find it and the >>> copying in open/make/modules/java.base/Copy.gmk is unconditional. >>> >>> /Erik >>> >>> [1] https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8042707 >> >> This may be unrelated, but I really think we should kill the std::bad_alloc >> hack in awt.dll as such > >> I happened to ask around on the build-dev mailing lists about whether we >> include msvcp.dll with the JDK, here is Erik's response: > > Yes, I saw that. It doesn't make any difference. > Although BTW the comment points out we shouldn't be doing static linking > anymore. > > >> This may be unrelated, but I really think we should kill the std::bad_alloc >> hack in awt.dll as such > > seems unrelated, yes, but I'd have to look at that, to see if there's a > reason to touch it. Itchy fingers are not a valid reason. @prrace ? ------------- PR Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/15096#issuecomment-1893138028
