RFR: 8333268: Fixes for static build [v2]

[Magnus Ihse Bursie]

On Tue, 18 Jun 2024 16:19:39 GMT, Magnus Ihse Bursie <ihse at 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