On Mon, 10 Feb 2025 17:41:55 GMT, Jiangli Zhou wrote:
>> This is similar to https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/pull/23431 change. It
>> removes libjvm.so as a recorded dependency for libExplicitAttach.so by not
>> explicitly link libExplicitAttach.so with libjvm.so at build time. To do
>> that, it
On Mon, 10 Feb 2025 04:00:44 GMT, Jiangli Zhou wrote:
>> This is similar to https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/pull/23431 change. It
>> removes libjvm.so as a recorded dependency for libExplicitAttach.so by not
>> explicitly link libExplicitAttach.so with libjvm.so at build time. To do
>> that, it
> This is similar to https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/pull/23431 change. It
> removes libjvm.so as a recorded dependency for libExplicitAttach.so by not
> explicitly link libExplicitAttach.so with libjvm.so at build time. To do
> that, it also changes libExplicitAttach.c to dynamically lookup the
On Mon, 10 Feb 2025 07:26:00 GMT, Alan Bateman wrote:
> Can you bump the copyright header date on libExplicitAttach.c before you
> integrate.
Done.
@AlanBateman @dholmes-ora Thanks for the review!
-
PR Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/23500#issuecomment-2648775523
On Mon, 10 Feb 2025 04:00:44 GMT, Jiangli Zhou wrote:
>> This is similar to https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/pull/23431 change. It
>> removes libjvm.so as a recorded dependency for libExplicitAttach.so by not
>> explicitly link libExplicitAttach.so with libjvm.so at build time. To do
>> that, it
On Mon, 10 Feb 2025 04:00:44 GMT, Jiangli Zhou wrote:
>> This is similar to https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/pull/23431 change. It
>> removes libjvm.so as a recorded dependency for libExplicitAttach.so by not
>> explicitly link libExplicitAttach.so with libjvm.so at build time. To do
>> that, it
On Fri, 7 Feb 2025 20:10:08 GMT, Jiangli Zhou wrote:
> Done, thanks. Moved `JNI_GetCreatedJavaVMs` lookup into JNI_OnLoad.
Good, this is much better.
-
PR Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/23500#issuecomment-2647141990
> This is similar to https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/pull/23431 change. It
> removes libjvm.so as a recorded dependency for libExplicitAttach.so by not
> explicitly link libExplicitAttach.so with libjvm.so at build time. To do
> that, it also changes libExplicitAttach.c to dynamically lookup the
On Sat, 8 Feb 2025 09:29:48 GMT, Alan Bateman wrote:
> Is the JavaVM param passed to JNI_OnLoad usable in static builds? If so then
> this just needs to be saved, no need to use GetCreatedJavaVMs, right?
Yes, on static JDK, `JNI_OnLoad`'s `JavaVM *` argument behaves the same as on
regular JDK.
On Fri, 7 Feb 2025 20:10:02 GMT, Jiangli Zhou wrote:
>> This is similar to https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/pull/23431 change. It
>> removes libjvm.so as a recorded dependency for libExplicitAttach.so by not
>> explicitly link libExplicitAttach.so with libjvm.so at build time. To do
>> that, it
On Fri, 7 Feb 2025 10:38:37 GMT, Alan Bateman wrote:
> Can you look at adding native init method instead? This could be called from
> the System.loadLibraray and avoid introduce a side effect of startThreads
> initialising GetCreatedJavaVMs.
Done, thanks. Moved `JNI_GetCreatedJavaVMs` lookup i
> This is similar to https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/pull/23431 change. It
> removes libjvm.so as a recorded dependency for libExplicitAttach.so by not
> explicitly link libExplicitAttach.so with libjvm.so at build time. To do
> that, it also changes libExplicitAttach.c to dynamically lookup the
On Thu, 6 Feb 2025 20:14:36 GMT, Jiangli Zhou wrote:
> This is similar to https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/pull/23431 change. It
> removes libjvm.so as a recorded dependency for libExplicitAttach.so by not
> explicitly link libExplicitAttach.so with libjvm.so at build time. To do
> that, it also
This is similar to https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/pull/23431 change. It removes
libjvm.so as a recorded dependency for libExplicitAttach.so by not explicitly
link libExplicitAttach.so with libjvm.so at build time. To do that, it also
changes libExplicitAttach.c to dynamically lookup the JNI_GetC
14 matches
Mail list logo
