On Fri, 21 Feb 2025 08:29:28 GMT, Aleksey Shipilev <sh...@openjdk.org> wrote:
>> Noticed this when reviewing >> [JDK-8349399](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8349399), which had to >> kludgy workaround the hunk introduced by `static-libs-bundles` addition >> ([JDK-8337265](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8337265)). I am somewhat >> surprised we even have `static-libs-bundles` as additional target in what I >> would consider a generic build-linux job! It looks cleaner to yank >> `static-libs-bundles` into a separate build job. >> >> This effectively reverts parts of the original change, and does a few >> modifications: >> - I see no reason to store the bundles, and continuing to do so would >> effectively overwrite `linux-x64-bundles` when we split the static build >> into another job, breaking tests. Not sure why we had to publish those >> bundles, @dougxc? They are not used in current JDK tests, I think? >> - The matrix definition in `build-linux.xml` unconditionally includes >> `debug` configuration to override flags and suffix, I had to redo this with >> inline variables >> >> Named the new job `linux-x64-static`, since I expect @jianglizhou to slide >> https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/pull/23471 just there by adding another >> `make-target` into that job definition. >> >> I did a partial GHA run already, and I expect full run to complete without >> errors. >> >> Testing: >> - [x] GHA > > Aleksey Shipilev has updated the pull request incrementally with one > additional commit since the last revision: > > Upload static bundles again OK, this downstream use should really be documented if you want people to know why it should persist. New version does a comment hopefully explaining this. The static bundle is uploaded, but now separately, in `linux-x64-static`. I am guessing that would work for Graal downstream? ------------- PR Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/23715#issuecomment-2673901613
