On Fri, 1 Nov 2024 16:25:59 GMT, Magnus Ihse Bursie <i...@openjdk.org> wrote:
>> As a prerequisite for Hermetic Java, we need a statically linked `java` >> launcher. It should behave like the normal, dynamically linked `java` >> launcher, except that all JDK native libraries should be statically, not >> dynamically, linked. >> >> This patch is the first step towards this goal. It will generate a >> `static-jdk` image with a statically linked launcher. This launcher is >> missing several native libs, however, and does therefore not behave like a >> proper dynamic java. One of the reasons for this is that local symbol hiding >> in static libraries are not implemented yet, which causes symbol clashes >> when linking all static libraries together. This will be addressed in an >> upcoming patch. >> >> All changes in the `src` directory are copied from, or inspired by, changes >> made in [the hermetic-java-runtime branch in Project >> Leyden](https://github.com/openjdk/leyden/tree/hermetic-java-runtime). > > Magnus Ihse Bursie has updated the pull request with a new target base due to > a merge or a rebase. The pull request now contains 10 commits: > > - Merge branch 'master' into static-jdk-image > - Fix bug in filtering out -Wl,--exclude-libs,ALL > - Don't hardcode server variant > - Setup LDFLAGS_STATIC_JDK > - Update GetJREPath comment and remove unnecessary JLI_IsStaticallyLinked > check > - Add lookup asserts > - Remove superfluous SRC. > - Merge branch 'master' into static-jdk-image > - Makefile changes needed for static-launcher and static-jdk-image targets > - Incorporate changes from leyden/hermetic-java-runtime that allows running > a static launcher Fixed a typo in above comment: **does** should be **doesn't** > I notice incremental build with your current PR does update > `static-jdk/bin/java` properly. This should be fixed as well. Should be: I notice incremental build with your current PR doesn't update `static-jdk/bin/java` properly. This should be fixed as well. ------------- PR Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/20837#issuecomment-2455487724
