Skip to content

Starlarkify dynamic_library_symlink2 and solib_symlink_action#763

Open
dzbarsky wants to merge 1 commit into
bazelbuild:mainfrom
dzbarsky:codex/starlarkify-solib-symlink-actions
Open

Starlarkify dynamic_library_symlink2 and solib_symlink_action#763
dzbarsky wants to merge 1 commit into
bazelbuild:mainfrom
dzbarsky:codex/starlarkify-solib-symlink-actions

Conversation

@dzbarsky

@dzbarsky dzbarsky commented Jun 19, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Summary

Replace _cc_internal.dynamic_library_symlink2 and _cc_internal.solib_symlink_action with create_solib_symlink, which declares a shareable artifact and registers actions.symlink with the dynamic library as its input. dynamic_library_symlink2 retains <solib_directory>/<path>, while solib_symlink_action retains <runtime_solib_dir_base or solib_directory>/<artifact.basename>.

The generated paths, shareable artifacts, symlink targets, and metadata propagation are preserved. The Starlark actions use the standard Symlink mnemonic instead of the native SolibSymlink mnemonic.

Declare shareable solib artifacts and register symlink actions from Starlark. Preserve explicit solib paths and runtime_solib_dir_base selection, with analysis and action execution coverage for both callers.
@dzbarsky dzbarsky force-pushed the codex/starlarkify-solib-symlink-actions branch from 9f3b304 to b15cc48 Compare June 19, 2026 13:41
@dzbarsky dzbarsky changed the title [codex] Starlarkify dynamic_library_symlink2 and solib_symlink_action Starlarkify dynamic_library_symlink2 and solib_symlink_action Jun 19, 2026
@dzbarsky dzbarsky marked this pull request as ready for review June 19, 2026 13:41
@lilygorsheneva

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator

I have a change in review internally that does these two as well as dynamic_library_soname and dynamic_library_symlink (had to wait for a bazel release for the latter)

@dzbarsky

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

Feel free to close out whichever ones are moot. Might make sense to land the ones not blocked on bazel release separately though, as a bazel upgrade can force a rules_cc bump but not vice versa. In other words rules_cc should support previous bazel versions gracefully

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants