RFR: 8348830: LIBFONTMANAGER optimization is always HIGHEST

[Matthias Baesken]

On Tue, 28 Jan 2025 13:32:56 GMT, Matthias Baesken <mbaesken at openjdk.org> wrote:

> In the makefile we reset LIBFONTMANAGER optimization, but is always set to HIGHEST so we can avoid the resetting.

Hi Erik, thanks for the review !


I noticed this issue, while going  through the  make rules of our libs; any idea why so many are set to OPTIMIZATION level LOW ?  Is this really still needed or just because of old compilers used many years ago?
For some libs the OPTIMIZATION level is not set  (e.g. BUILD_LIBSYSLOOKUP)  is this okay ? Guess some default is used in those cases?

Lib compilation	current optimization level
BUILD_LIBJVM   	varies
BUILD_LIBNET	LOW
BUILD_LIBNIO	HIGH
BUILD_LIBOSXSECURITY	LOW
BUILD_LIBJSIG	LOW
BUILD_LIBSYSLOOKUP	nothing set ??
BUILD_LIBFALLBACKLINKER	nothing set ??
BUILD_LIBSIMD_SORT	HIGH
BUILD_LIBVERIFY	HIGH
BUILD_LIBJAVA	HIGH
BUILD_LIBZIP	LOW
BUILD_LIBJIMAGE	LOW
BUILD_LIBJLI	HIGH
BUILD_LIBJSOUND	LOW
BUILD_LIBOSXAPP	LOW
BUILD_LIBOSX	LOW
BUILD_LIBAWT	HIGHEST
BUILD_LIBAWT_HEADLESS	LOW
BUILD_LIBAWT_XAWT	LOW
BUILD_LIBAWT_LWAWT	LOW
BUILD_LIBJAWT	LOW
BUILD_LIBMLIB_IMAGE	HIGHEST
BUILD_LIBLCMS	HIGHEST
BUILD_LIBJAVAJPEG	HIGHEST
BUILD_LIBSPLASHSCREEN	LOW
BUILD_LIBFREETYPE	HIGHEST
BUILD_LIBFONTMANAGER	HIGHEST
BUILD_LIBOSXUI	LOW
BUILD_LIBINSTRUMENT	LOW
BUILD_LIBMANAGEMENT	HIGH
BUILD_LIBPREFS	HIGH
BUILD_LIBRMI	LOW
BUILD_LIBJ2GSS	LOW
BUILD_LIBSSPI_BRIDGE	LOW
BUILD_LIBW2K_LSA_AUTH	LOW
BUILD_LIBOSXKRB5	LOW
BUILD_LIBJ2PCSC	LOW
BUILD_LIBJAVAACCESSBRIDGE	LOW
BUILD_LIBWINDOWSACCESSBRIDGE	LOW
BUILD_LIBATTACH	LOW
BUILD_LIBJ2PKCS11	LOW
BUILD_LIBSUNMSCAPI	LOW
BUILD_LIBSAPROC	HIGH
BUILD_LIBJSVML	nothing set ??
BUILD_LIBSLEEF	HIGH
BUILD_LIBDT_SHMEM	LOW
BUILD_LIBDT_SOCKET	LOW
BUILD_LIBJDWP	LOW
BUILD_LIBJPACKAGEAPPLAUNCHERAUX	LOW
BUILD_LIBJPACKAGE	LOW
BUILD_LIBWIXHELPER	LOW
BUILD_LIBMANAGEMENT_AGENT	LOW
BUILD_LIBMANAGEMENT_EXT	HIGH
BUILD_LIBEXTNET	LOW
BUILD_LIBSCTP	LOW
BUILD_LIBJAAS	LOW

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

PR Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/23332#issuecomment-2619179908