3 okt. 2018 kl. 01:30 skrev Kim Barrett <kim.barr...@oracle.com>:
>> On Oct 2, 2018, at 6:10 PM, David Holmes <david.hol...@oracle.com> wrote: >> The archaeology is getting too hard. :( > > No kidding! > >> Yes but you will need to go through a full round of testing, not just tier >> 1-3, before being reasonably confident the workaround is not needed. I'd >> hate to see this break things "in the wild" just because we don't have >> adequate test coverage. >> >> Other opinions welcomed. > > I was planning to hit it with tier1-8 and possibly other things if I can find > them. > JCK tests too; I saw some instructions for running those in mach5 recently. > > That all assumes that static build actually works at all; it doesn’t look > like we > test that configuration these days, so who knows what bit rot may have set in. > No, we don't test static build, and never have. I'd be surprised if it's still possible to build a static build. This was a feature developed for the mobile project. The static build part was merged, somewhat hastily, into mainline, but the rest of the mobile code is still lingering in the mobile project fork. The entire "static build" concept was somewhat artificially injected in some parts of the build code. It is for instance not possible to build all modules with a static build. At the very least you need to build without java.desktop, if I remember correctly. The motivation for the static build is that on iOS, apps are not allowed to load dynamic libraries (for some reason only Apple knows). So a developer that wants to build a Java app needs to have a static library version of the entire JDK to link with into a single executable Java launcher. So in this perspective, the entire use of dlopen in a static build smells funny, and might be just a left-over from static build being more of a hack than a properly supported build option. /Magnus
