building static libs for ios/android

[Johan Vos]

Hi Magnus,

Thanks for your reply. I can indeed tell that there are major changes in
upstream openjdk/jdk related to static builds, as the Skara ran into 3
conflicts over the past week while merging from upstream :)
That is great news, and I'm glad the static build gets traction in
openjdk/jdk. This might be a good moment to work on the
remaining android/ios specific clauses that are in openjdk/mobile but not
(yet) in openjdk/jdk. It is probably best to wait until you finished your
current refactory of the static builds approach. I'll make sure the
openjdk/mobile follows the new approach, so that the diff will be really
small.

I will probably merge my PR with the latest additional ios/Android changes
into mobile/HEAD as that will make it easier to merge the incoming
(openjdk/HEAD) changes with the latest changes for mobile.

Thanks again,

- Johan

On Mon, Mar 25, 2024 at 3:31 PM Magnus Ihse Bursie <
magnus.ihse.bursie at oracle.com> wrote:

> On 2024-03-23 17:42, Johan Vos wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > I created a PR that brings in the remaining changes needed to compile
> > an image containing the static JDK libs (not the VM libs) for
> ios/android:
> > https://github.com/openjdk/mobile/pull/20
> >
> > As a major improvement, this PR also adds ios/android build scripts
> > for GA (thanks to Abhinay Agarwal for doing this). As a consequence,
> > we will immediately notice if an upstream commit (in openjdk/jdk) is
> > breaking the build for the mobile static libs.
> >
> > In a previous message, I suggested a separate branch would be my
> > preference for doing development work. However, there are 2 reasons
> > why I prefer this PR to go into the main branch:
> > 1. it seems I don't have permission to create new branches
> > 2. there is at least 1 major embarrassing bug in the current main
> > branch (fi instead of endif) hence an improvement sounds appropriate.
> >
> > Slightly related: the auto-merge operation by the skara bot had 2
> > merge conflicts recently, due to changes in the upstream make
> > directories. I fixed the conflicts, and while I didn't look in the
> > details yet, it seems Magnus is doing simplifications in openjdk/jdk
> > that are also simplifying some of the build logic for mobile. That is
> > great, thanks for that!
>
> <ominous music>More change is on the horizon. A storm is
> coming.</ominous music> Or maybe not. But things will happen in the area
> of static build. Hopefully good changes. :-) This is driven by the
> Hermetic Java project, which requires static builds of the entire JDK.
>
> I guess in the end this part of Hermetic Java is quite similar to the
> mobile project, but with the intention of bringing this to mainline. As
> a result of this wish, I wanted to make sure that static build is
> properly treated as a "first class citizen" in the build system.
>
> I was under the impression that the mobile project was more or less
> abandoned, but I'm happy to see this is not the case. I hope I can
> communicate with you so that we end up creating a single solution for
> producing static builds that are usable both for mobile and Hermetic Java.
>
> /Magnus
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mail.openjdk.org/pipermail/mobile-dev/attachments/20240325/d8c6b812/attachment.htm>