RFR: 8307194: Enhance static-libs-image [v7]

[Jiangli Zhou]

On Fri, 5 May 2023 16:43:46 GMT, Jiangli Zhou <jiangli at openjdk.org> wrote:

>>> [...] I'll see if I can test this on a mandrel build tomorrow...
>> 
>> @jianglizhou So I've tested this with a mandrel build and it doesn't break terribly, but a graalvm build after this patch has *two* `libjvm.a` which a) doesn't make sense, b) the hotspot version is **very** large (> 1 GB on my system), so unnecessarily bloats the install. I remain of the opinion that the hotspot `libjvm.a` should only get generated for a new make target (not change the old `static-libs-image` target). Do you think that would be a workable solution for you?
>
>> @jerboaa Thanks very much for testing with mandrel. Based on yours and @olpaw's feedback, I'll refactor this PR to not use the existing `static-libs-image` target for including hotspot `libjvm.a`.
> 
> Updated PR to decouple building libjvm.a from static-libs-image target. Add a java-static-libs-image target for building the static library super set, which includes JDK .a static libraries and hotspot libjvm.a.

> At first glance, static-libs-image create libjvm.a in the same directory as the other lib .a files make sense but I don't know how that works if --with-jvm-variants is used to create more more than one libjvm. Might have to think whether this combination make sense or not.

We now use a java-static-libs-image target for building all JDK and hotspot .a static libraries.

@erikj79 Suggested building libjvm.a for $(JVM_VARIANT_MAIN) for now. I think that's a good starting point. The PR has been updated accordingly.

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

PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/13768#discussion_r1186308007