On Fri, 7 Mar 2025 09:44:38 GMT, Thomas Stuefe <stu...@openjdk.org> wrote:
>>> I meant more like "not supported". You are correct that it is technically >>> possible. >>> >>> How useful is signal chaining even these days? >>> >>> While we could do something like this, I see more trouble ahead. How should >>> we do when we put the static libs in a jmod? Should all static libraries >>> have an "optional/required" flag attached to them? How do the user select >>> if libjsig should be included or not? >>> >>> I would argue that for the time being, it is better to set libjsig as >>> `ONLY_EXPORTED`, and if/when we get back to revisit this, we can start >>> compiling it always, and then we will also have a story on how to test it, >>> how to handle it in jmods, etc, including perhaps a better idea on how >>> important it is to have signal chaining for static builds. >> >> I think I could be convinced, but it probably not a decision could be made >> by just us. :-) I think it would require broader discussion and decision >> making on if the JDK signal chaining provided by libjsig should be supported >> on static JDK. That decision probably should be made as part of a JEP >> process when we move to that step. > >> I meant more like "not supported". You are correct that it is technically >> possible. >> >> How useful is signal chaining even these days? >> > > It is a niche solution to a complex problem (using signals in third-party > native libraries which do their signal setup after hotspot signal setup has > happened, preventing the library from messing up the hotspot signal > mechanism). It is certainly used and needs to continue existing. @tstuefe Thanks for taking a looking! ------------- PR Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/23924#issuecomment-2707066662
