On Wed, 5 Feb 2025 01:12:49 GMT, David Holmes <dhol...@openjdk.org> wrote:
>> Also to point it out if it's not clear already, `libjvm.so` is >> implementation detail. One cannot safely that exists at runtime. The static >> JDK case is a good example. > >> Also to point it out if it's not clear already, libjvm.so is implementation >> detail. One cannot safely that exists at runtime. The static JDK case is a >> good example. > > Is there any other example? Presuming the existence of dynamic linked > libraries is pretty standard. @dholmes-ora and @AlanBateman Could you please review and approve the change if there's no additional concerns? I also sent out https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/pull/23500, which applies the same principle to fix libExplicitAttach issue. I'm also in the process of adding the VMProps for static JDK as @AlanBateman suggested. That's needed to skip the tests require accessing tools in `bin/`, until we have a clear story on the tools support for static JDK/hermetic Java (that topic has been brought up in the hermetic Java meetings). ------------- PR Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/23431#issuecomment-2640918286
