JDK 10 RFR of 8028544 and 8028546

[Jonathan Gibbons]

Mostly OK.

test/tools/javac/file/MultiReleaseJar/MultiReleaseJarTest.java
I wonder whether in this test you should be adding a test case, instead 
of changing 9 to 10.

-- Jon


On 01/26/2017 04:23 PM, joe darcy wrote:
> Hello,
>
> All langtools tests should be passing now with the refined changes in
>
>     http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~darcy/8028546.2/
>
> Stuart, jdeprscan required some minor edits.
>
> As noted implicitly in the some of changes, some of the areas of the 
> code affected on this webrev will need revision once there is distinct 
> support for --release 9 and --release 10.
>
> Thanks,
>
> -Joe
>
>
> On 1/26/2017 12:37 PM, joe darcy wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> As part of JDK 10 ground breaking, I'm working on fixes to
>>
>>     JDK-8028544: Add SourceVersion.RELEASE_10
>>     JDK-8028546: Add -source 10 and -target 10 to javac
>>
>> Current webrev available at
>>
>>     http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~darcy/8028546.1/
>>
>> With a few exceptions, the langtools tests are all passing with these 
>> changes. I updated a few annotation processing tests from using the 
>> vanilla AbstractProcessor to the JavacTestingAbstractProcessor. The 
>> exceptions include the currently failing tests
>>
>> FAILED: 
>> tools/javac/T8009640/CheckRejectProfileBCPOptionsIfUsedTogetherTest.java
>> FAILED: tools/jdeprscan/tests/jdk/jdeprscan/TestRelease.java
>> FAILED: tools/javac/file/MultiReleaseJar/MultiReleaseJarTest.java
>>
>> The failures seem related to the --release option. At least until the 
>> Java SE 9 API is finalized, I think it is okay for --release 9 and 
>> --release 10 to mean the same thing and refer to the in-forest state 
>> of the API. However, I haven't fully reverse-engineered how to do that.
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> -Joe
>>
>