RFR: 8339480: Build static-jdk image with a statically linked launcher [v17]

Tue Nov 26 17:17:11 UTC 2024

On Tue, 26 Nov 2024 15:32:43 GMT, Magnus Ihse Bursie <ihse at openjdk.org> wrote:

>> make/autoconf/buildjdk-spec.gmk.template line 80:
>> 
>>> 78: CXXFLAGS_JDKEXE := @OPENJDK_BUILD_CXXFLAGS_JDKEXE@
>>> 79: LDFLAGS_JDKEXE := @OPENJDK_BUILD_LDFLAGS_JDKEXE@
>>> 80: LDFLAGS_STATIC_JDK := @OPENJDK_BUILD_LDFLAGS_STATIC_JDK@
>> 
>> Do we really expect to ever build a static-jdk as buildjdk?
>
> Not really, no. I created this out of symmetry reasons. Do you want me to remove it?

Removed.

>> make/common/JdkNativeCompilation.gmk line 313:
>> 
>>> 311:     # created libraries, and is read by ModuleWrapper.
>>> 312:     ifneq ($$($1_EXCLUDE_FROM_STATIC_LIBS), true)
>>> 313:       $$(MODULE)_JDK_LIBS += $$($1_NAME)
>> 
>> This variable is used to track libraries that should be included in static libs. Perhaps the name should include the word "static" to make this clearer? Otherwise it doesn't make sense to exclude libraries like this from this list.
>
> I think it's more the name EXCLUDE_FROM_STATIC_LIBS that is bad. What I am really trying to express here is whether a library is supposed to be used by the Java classes in this module, or if it is provided as a special library for external parties to link with. 
> 
> Like you said about the windowsaccessbridge stuff above. These too should be flagged as "do not implement necessary native functionality for the java classes in the module".
> 
> Maybe call it ONLY_EXPORTED? NOT_INTERNALLY_USED? Or maybe turn the boolean the other way around and call it USED_BY_MODULE, and set it fo `false` for those special cases?

I renamed `EXCLUDE_FROM_STATIC_LIBS` to `ONLY_EXPORTED`, `$(MODULE)_JDK_LIBS` to `$(MODULE)_INCLUDED_LIBS` and `module-libs.txt` to `module-included-libs.txt`.

I hope this makes the purpose clearer and the usage more consistent.

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

PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/20837#discussion_r1858942492
PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/20837#discussion_r1858940422