<!DOCTYPE html><html><head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body>
<p>Yes, I think we should also remove AOTClassLinking support for
the static CDS archive. It's less pressing of an issue, as the
static archive is very similar to the AOT cache.</p>
<p>Let's first remove from dynamic archive, and see if we get any
pushback :-)</p>
<p>Thanks</p>
<p>- Ioi</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 9/10/25 2:00 PM, Ashutosh Mehra
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:CAKt0pyTkRVpW=5M8O9fzzhCSN_oTLPG92jCeURSO9nRLhCO5sw@mail.gmail.com">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>+1 for removing AOTClassLinking support for dynamic
archives. One less scenario to think of.</div>
<div>Since we are adopting and advocating AOTCache based
workflow, perhaps we should remove support for AOTClassLinking
with any of the older CDS based workflows - static or dynamic
archive.</div>
<div>I am not sure if it would have any impact on the code base,
but it would keep the two workflows completely separate,
making it easier to reason about the future changes.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:CAKt0pyTkRVpW=5M8O9fzzhCSN_oTLPG92jCeURSO9nRLhCO5sw@mail.gmail.com">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>Thanks,</div>
<div>
<div dir="ltr" class="gmail_signature" data-smartmail="gmail_signature">
<div dir="ltr">- Ashutosh Mehra</div>
</div>
</div>
<br>
</div>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote gmail_quote_container">
<div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Wed, Sep 10, 2025 at
3:14 PM <<a href="mailto:ioi.lam@oracle.com" moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext">ioi.lam@oracle.com</a>>
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">I've
filed <a href="https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8367366" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext">https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8367366</a>
to remove <br>
-XX:+AOTClassLinking support for dynamic CDS archive. Any
objections?<br>
<br>
Background: we needed this for the old (and removed) "5 step
workflow" <br>
in early Leyden development. And it somehow leaked into the
mainline <br>
when we upstreamed JEP 483.<br>
<br>
However, most (if not all) current and future Leyden
optimizations will <br>
depend on BOTH -XX:+AOTClassLinking and archive heap objects.
Because we <br>
don't support archived heap objects in the dynamic archive, so
it won't <br>
benefit from any of those optimization.<br>
<br>
My main concerns are (1) code bloat, and (2) the chance of
introducing <br>
bugs when we add new optimizations without sufficient testing
for the <br>
dynamic archive. I think I actually have one such bug in <br>
`fixup_module_field_list()` in <a href="https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/pull/26375__;!!ACWV5N9M2RV99hQ!KXRq6nmINWx8yh798jb1bjWnWV2KPgNd3R0DtUvbSdnWY_RlHWEgFk1s500ggu23Mbgi0dpGkMvY2A$" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/pull/26375</a>
<br>
(preload classes from AOT cache).<br>
<br>
Thanks<br>
<br>
- Ioi<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
</div>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>