On Thu, 27 Feb 2025 15:33:47 GMT, Matthias Baesken <mbaes...@openjdk.org> wrote:
>> No, there is nothing for that. There is a conceptual leap between >> determining how to compile hotspot and how to decide which modules to >> include in the image, and is not at all clear how you would want to >> integrate these two. Like, should you exclude models by saying a hotspot >> feature is not needed? Or, should you modify how hotspot is compiled by >> saying that you want to exclude a model? >> >> I think it is better left to whoever configures the build to figure such >> things out. > >> No, there is nothing for that. There is a conceptual leap between >> determining how to compile hotspot and how to decide which modules to >> include in the image, and is not at all clear how you would want to >> integrate these two. Like, should you exclude models by saying a hotspot >> feature is not needed? Or, should you modify how hotspot is compiled by >> saying that you want to exclude a model? >> >> I think it is better left to whoever configures the build to figure such >> things out. > > I was just following up to the idea stated above > 'If the only VM to be built is the minimal VM then maybe it should filter > down the set of modules to include' > but this is not so easy it seems. > Regarding - 'should you exclude models (modules?) by saying a hotspot feature > is not needed?' excluding the JVM feature JFR means that the jfr related > modules are broken/not (fully) working. > Excluding them would probably be logical (and also help the tests because > quite a lot of tests do not have requires vm.hasJFR or requires vm.jvmti to > check if the test makes sense on some JVM with limited features) . If you want to see that implemented, the first step is to open an enhancement issue on JBS. ------------- PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/23805#discussion_r1974374119
