On Mon, 11 Aug 2025 14:23:03 GMT, Magnus Ihse Bursie <i...@openjdk.org> wrote:
>> I could also create a separate file for each launcher with a name pattern >> and gather up all these files in StaticLibs.gmk, but then I will get >> problems with left-over such files, for e.g. if incrementally building after >> removing a launcher. Not a common scenario, I agree, but it seems like a >> worse solution. > > This solution was modeled on how we create `module-included-libs.txt`. I > agree that it is a bit hacky to inject this kind of stuff in ModuleWrapper, > but I can't see how we can do it more cleanly. That's the only point at which > we know the entire module for a phase. > > Maybe we can improve optics by doing a more official-looking "hook" for > injecting functionality at pre-/post- whole-module processing? That would > keep ModuleWrapper slimmer and without all the current specialized hooks, and > make the name "wrapper" more relevant. > > Or, we could rename the makefile to indicate better that it does a lot more > than just wraps a file. (I have no good suggestions right now.) I'm not sure what you mean here. I described a solution that keeps it in LauncherCommon without creating races. ------------- PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/24380#discussion_r2267491796
