On Wed, 13 Nov 2024 01:40:23 GMT, Jiangli Zhou <jian...@openjdk.org> wrote:
>> @jianglizhou Thank you for your assistance in figuring out the problem. I >> guess I throw out too much code from the hermetic-java-runtime branch when >> trying to minimize the changes to only build-related stuff. The jimage >> changes were so busy so I probably ignored them a bit too much. > > @magicus Just want to check if there's anything that you are waiting from me > for this PR. My understanding is that you'll update the PR to fix the > incremental build and debuginfo before the last review iteration. Please let > me know if there are anything else. Thanks! > @jianglizhou > > > I think we would need to decide what is the dll_dir with the static JDK > > support and hermetic support. > > From my understanding, `_sun_boot_library_path` does not have any meaning > when running with static builds. As I said before, I think we really ought to > take a step back, consider the wider picture, and refactor the way we > interact with internal native libraries. Determining how to handle > `_sun_boot_library_path` for static builds are definitely part of that work. There might still be some usages of `_sun_boot_library_path` with static JDK. I recently made changes (in our local copy and not yet in https://github.com/openjdk/leyden/tree/hermetic-java-runtime) to use `_sun_boot_library_path` to locate the `jspawnhelper` in `<jdk>/lib` when spawning child process is needed, for supporting specific hermetic Java testing mode (without building a full hermetic image). At some point, we want to call out the supported execution modes (e.g. hermetic mode, dynamic/tradition mode, hermetic testing mode, etc) in https://docs.google.com/document/d/1LWy9vFDis5-hbJwrFUBH1rc8w8f3oL6O3sOzQXjXVUM/edit?usp=sharing as part of the ongoing discussions with Alan, Ron and others. Agreed that `_sun_boot_library_path` should be part of the bigger picture design/discussion. ------------- PR Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/20837#issuecomment-2486244160
