RFR JDK-8129562: JDK 9 build using boot-jdk classes instead of newly compiled classes

[Jan Lahoda]

Jon suggested that now, when the EMPTY_BOOTCLASSPATH is used not only 
for -bootclasspath, it could be renamed to EMPTY_DIR.

An updated webrev with the rename is here:

http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~jlahoda/8129562/webrev.01/

How does this look?

Thanks,
     Jan

On 6.8.2015 17:33, Tim Bell wrote:
> Well, OK, since you are already using $(EMPTY_BOOTCLASSPATH) with
> -bootclasspath
>
> Tim
>
> On 08/06/15 07:57, Jonathan Gibbons wrote:
>> Looks good to me, but we need a build-dev Reviewer.
>>
>> -- Jon
>>
>> On 08/04/2015 02:11 PM, Jan Lahoda wrote:
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> Any comments on this?
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>     Jan
>>>
>>> On 27.7.2015 13:49, Jan Lahoda wrote:
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> Bug:
>>>> https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8129562
>>>>
>>>> As part of the fix for JDK-8054717, CompileJavaModules.gmk is now using
>>>> an "empty" bootclasspath (classes like java.lang.Object are loaded from
>>>> the ordinary classpath as needed). Unfortunately, javac is still using
>>>> the default ext and endorsed dirs (if available in the boot JDK), and
>>>> classes that are in the ext dirs have precedence over the classes from
>>>> the classpath. Which may cause compilation problems with the ext dirs
>>>> contain an older version of a class.
>>>>
>>>> The proposal is to make ext and endorsed dirs "empty" as well (both ext
>>>> and endorsed dirs will contain one entry, and the entry will be an
>>>> empty
>>>> directory):
>>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~jlahoda/8129562/webrev.00/
>>>>
>>>> What do you think?
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>>      Jan
>>
>