On Tue, 18 Jun 2024 16:19:39 GMT, Magnus Ihse Bursie <i...@openjdk.org> wrote:

>> This patch contains a set of changes to improve static builds. They will 
>> pave the way for implementing a full static-only java launcher. The changes 
>> here will:
>> 
>> 1) Make sure non-exported symbols are made local in the static libraries. 
>> This means that the risk of symbol conflict is the same for static libraries 
>> as for dynamic libraries (i.e. in practice zero, as long as a consistent 
>> naming scheme is used for exported functions).
>> 
>> 2) Remove the work-arounds to exclude duplicated symbols.
>> 
>> 3) Fix some code in hotspot and the JDK libraries that did not work properly 
>> with a static java launcher.
>> 
>> The latter fixes are copied from or inspired by the work done by 
>> @jianglizhou and her team as part of the Project Leyden [Hermetic 
>> Java](https://github.com/openjdk/leyden/tree/hermetic-java-runtime).
>
> Magnus Ihse Bursie has updated the pull request with a new target base due to 
> a merge or a rebase. The incremental webrev excludes the unrelated changes 
> brought in by the merge/rebase. The pull request contains seven additional 
> commits since the last revision:
> 
>  - Merge branch 'master' into static-linking-progress
>  - Merge branch 'master' into static-linking-progress
>  - Move the exported JVM_IsStaticallyLinked to a better location
>  - Use runtime lookup of static vs dynamic instead of #ifdef STATIC_BUILD
>  - Copy fix for init_system_properties_values on linux
>  - Make sure we do not try to build static libraries on Windows
>  - 8333268: Fixes for static build

src/hotspot/os/linux/os_linux.cpp line 605:

> 603: 
> 604:       // Get rid of /{client|server|hotspot}, if binary is libjvm.so.
> 605:       // Or, cut off /<binary_name>.

@jianglizhou This code is based on changes in the Hermetic Java repo, but I do 
not fully understand neither the comment nor what the purpose is. If you could 
explain this a bit I'd be grateful.

-------------

PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/19478#discussion_r1644855137

Reply via email to