On Fri, 7 Mar 2025 09:22:44 GMT, Doug Simon <dnsi...@openjdk.org> wrote:
>>> It seems we agree that we need, at some point, to have a high-level >>> discussion on if libjsig should be supported on static builds, and if so, >>> how it should be implemented. We also agree that having signal chaining >>> enabled by default on our static JDK builds are incorrect. >> >> Thumbs up. >> >>> >>> However, I suggest we chose a simple path, were we utilize the framework >>> for not building a static library that we do not use (this is already done >>> for several libraries that are not included in the static JDK image), while >>> you suggest we keep compiling it, even if we do not include it and test it. >>> >>> I don't get the point of this. If we don't include it, and don't test it, >>> then surely it would be better to not even build it now? >> >> We have no current usages of libjsig in our current hermetic Java testing >> and prototype development work. So I don't have related concerns if don't >> produce a `libjsig.a` in the `static-libs` for the short term. Let's check >> with @dougxc and others from GraalVM side to make sure that they are okay >> with removing `libjsig.a` from the static libs bundle, before making any >> changes. > >> Let's check with @dougxc and others from GraalVM side > > @wirthi or someone from the Native Image team will comment on this. Thanks > for the heads up. > Let's check with @dougxc and others from GraalVM side to make sure that they > are okay with removing libjsig.a from the static libs bundle, before making > any changes. Hi @jianglizhou, Native image has no use for `libjsig.a` and we are fine if it is not part of static libs bundle. ------------- PR Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/23924#issuecomment-2709827155
