Why static_jli for java/javaw on Windows?

Markus Gronlund markus.gronlund at oracle.com
Fri Sep 14 08:50:29 UTC 2018

Hi Magnus, Erik and Alan,

Came to think of this issue in relation to this discussion:


It might provide some additional information, especially since it describes an issue we recently ran into that was related to  static linking.


-----Original Message-----
From: Magnus Ihse Bursie 
Sent: den 14 september 2018 09:22
To: Erik Joelsson <erik.joelsson at oracle.com>; Alan Bateman <alan.bateman at oracle.com>; core-libs-dev at openjdk.java.net
Cc: build-dev <build-dev at openjdk.java.net>
Subject: Re: Why static_jli for java/javaw on Windows?

On 2018-09-14 01:17, Erik Joelsson wrote:
> I checked and the copying of java.exe was done in the now legacy jre 
> installer, so from what I can tell, there is no longer a need for 
> static linking.

Sounds good. I agree with your reasoning, it seems the main concern was the copy to the system directory. A second point was raised in private, that the old system of letting the java launcher select another version to launch, could be behind this. Neither this system is kept anymore.

Thanks for all input!


> /Erik
> On 2018-09-13 09:14, Erik Joelsson wrote:
>> Hello,
>> Reading that bug, it seems the problem is when the installer copies 
>> java.exe into the Windows system directory. In that case, it may not 
>> have access to the msvcr re-distributables. I will try to find out if 
>> our installers are still doing this.
>> /Erik
>> On 2018-09-13 06:32, Alan Bateman wrote:
>>> On 13/09/2018 14:07, Magnus Ihse Bursie wrote:
>>>> :
>>>> Apparently, someone was trying to get rid of dll dependencies from 
>>>> java.exe. Why that would be desirable it does not say. Neither why 
>>>> this should not apply to all other launchers. (Perhaps there were 
>>>> not that many in these days?)
>>>> Do anyone think this still seems relevant? Otherwise I'd like to 
>>>> get rid of this hack, and link java and javaw just like all the 
>>>> other launchers.
>>> I don't know if it is still needed but it seems to be related to the 
>>> upgrade to VC 7 and an issue related to redistribution issue of the 
>>> MS runtime. JDK-6282039 and JDK-6382014 have some info on this.
>>> -Alan.

More information about the core-libs-dev mailing list