RFR: 8318913: The module-infos for --release data do not contain pre-set versions

[Magnus Ihse Bursie]

On Fri, 27 Oct 2023 11:35:54 GMT, Jan Lahoda <jlahoda at openjdk.org> wrote:

> Consider a simple module, like:
> 
> module test {}
> 
> 
> And compile it with JDK 22 and JDK 21 using:
> javac --release 21
> 
> The results of the compilations will differ: when compiling with JDK 21, the mandated java.base dependency will get a version, possibly like "21-internal". When compiling with JDK 22, the version of the java.base dependency will be empty.
> 
> This is a) because `module-info.class`es in `ct.sym` do not have any module version set; b) for JDK N, `--release N` is not using `ct.sym`, but rather `lib/modules`, which may contain a range of version specifiers.
> 
> This patch does two changes:
> a) tweaks the `module-info.class`es in `ct.sym`, so that they contain a simple version. For `--release N`, the version is `N`.
> b) tweaks the whole build so that `ct.sym` is used always for `--release`, a `lib/modules` is never used. I.e. the appropriate classfiles are copied into `ct.sym`. This not only allows for a general approach to module versions, but simplifies the `--release` handling in javac, and should enable future improvements. This is, however, a relatively big change.
> 
> The use of `lib/modules` for `--release <current>` was made to improve build performance, but the build has been updated since this has been introduced, so the slowdown caused by rebuilding `ct.sym` should be much lower now.
> 
> With these changes, compiling with `--release N` should record the same dependency versions in `module-info` on JDK N and JDK N + 1.

make/modules/jdk.compiler/Gendata.gmk line 42:

> 40: $(eval $(call ReadImportMetaData))
> 41: 
> 42: # Modules that should be visible for 9 - the documented modules:

While this is an old comment, it seems outdated. I assume "9" refers to "JDK 9", but that is no longer current. Maybe you can rephrase the comment while you're at it?

-------------

PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/16400#discussion_r1386809738