Bugs that are inadvertently fixed

[Jonathan Gibbons]

+lots !!

-- Jon

On 10/21/22 9:20 AM, Michel Trudeau wrote:
>
> Thank you Archie, that’s great.   We’ll process those in the next week 
> or so.
>
> -Michel
>
> *From: *compiler-dev <compiler-dev-retn at openjdk.org> on behalf of 
> Archie Cobbs <archie.cobbs at gmail.com>
> *Date: *Thursday, October 20, 2022 at 3:56 PM
> *To: *compiler-dev at openjdk.org <compiler-dev at openjdk.org>
> *Subject: *Re: Bugs that are inadvertently fixed
>
> On Tue, Oct 18, 2022 at 3:45 PM Michel Trudeau 
> <michel.trudeau at oracle.com> wrote:
>
>     Please keep reporting.   It’s useful info.
>
> Here are a few more that I've found so far. FYI I'm testing with JDK 19.
>
> JDK-7158531 <https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-7158531> - Not sure 
> (no reproducing example given) but from inspection it looks like it's 
> fixed
>
> JDK-7167356 <https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-7167356> - Partially 
> fixed
>
> JavacParserTest.testPositionBrokenSource126732a() is working now - can 
> be re-enabled
>
> JavacParserTest.testPositionBrokenSource126732b() is working now - can 
> be re-enabled
>
> JavacParserTest.testStartPositionEnumConstantInit() is still broken
>
> JDK-8006042 <https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8006042> - Appears to 
> be fixed
>
> JDK-8024687 <https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8024687> - Possibly 
> fixed? - the behavior has changed at least:
>
> Test.java:3: error: namePrep has private access in IDN
> { IDN.namePrep.toString(); }
>  ^
> Test.java:3: error: Object.toString() is defined in an inaccessible 
> class or interface
> { IDN.namePrep.toString(); }
>           ^
> 2 errors
>
> JDK-8024317 <https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8024317> - Locking is 
> no longer used so the bug as reported appears to be fixed.
>
> JDK-8027682 <https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8027682> - Appears to 
> be fixed
>
> JDK-8034251 <https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8034251> - I don't 
> understand what the bug is here. Compiler seems to be doing the right 
> thing.
>
> JDK-8043279 <https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8043279> - Appears to 
> be fixed (based on the linked test case in JDK-8034147 
> <https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8034147>)
>
> JDK-8044734 <https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8044734> - Appears to 
> be fixed
>
> JDK-8048547 <https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8048547> - Appears to 
> be fixed
>
> These next six bugs all seem to be one identical bug filed multiple times:
>
> JDK-8052121 <https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8052121> - Appears to 
> be fixed
>
> JDK-8052135 <https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8052135> - Appears to 
> be fixed
>
> JDK-8054274 <https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8054274> - Appears to 
> be fixed
>
> JDK-8054275 <https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8054275> - Appears to 
> be fixed
>
> JDK-8054276 <https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8054276> - Appears to 
> be fixed
>
> JDK-8054284 <https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8054284> - Appears to 
> be fixed
>
> JDK-8065572 <https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8065572> - Appears to 
> be fixed
>
> JDK-8065988 <https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8065988> - Appears to 
> be fixed
>
> JDK-8130386 <https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8130386> - Appears to 
> be fixed
>
> JDK-8130401 <https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8130401> - Appears to 
> be fixed
>
> JDK-8151992 <https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8151992> - Probably 
> can resolve now as not reproducible
>
> JDK-8152894 <https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8152894> - Appears to 
> be fixed
>
> JDK-8155907 <https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8155907> - Appears to 
> be fixed
>
> JDK-8157773 <https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8157773> - Appears to 
> be fixed
>
> JDK-8159667 <https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8159667> - Appears to 
> be fixed
>
> JDK-8166209 <https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8166209> - Appears to 
> be fixed
>
> JDK-8172106 <https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8172106> - Soon to be 
> "inadvertently" fixed by pr#10803 
> <https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/pull/10803> :)
>
> JDK-8174921 <https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8174921> - Appears to 
> be fixed
>
> JDK-8179359 <https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8179359> - Link to 
> test case is broken, so this bug seems no longer decipherable
>
> JDK-8180387 <https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8180387> - Is fixed 
> to the extent that the JavacTask() constructor is now documented
>
> JDK-8184324 <https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8184324> - Probably 
> no longer reproducible because it's based on another project in 2017
>
> JDK-8184224 <https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8184224> - Appears to 
> be fixed
>
> JDK-8186030 <https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8186030> - Appears to 
> be fixed
>
> JDK-8187425 <https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8187425> - Appears to 
> be fixed
>
> JDK-8191896 <https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8191896> - IMHO this 
> is not a bug. The compiler is simply reporting only the first of two 
> problems.
>
> JDK-8194847 <https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8194847> - Appears to 
> be fixed
>
> JDK-8200156 <https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8200156> - Appears to 
> be fixed
>
> This has been an interesting tour so far. I'm going in order of 
> creation time and am up to March 2018. Just looking at ones that are 
> easy for me to try to reproduce.
>
> My query is: component = tools AND Subcomponent = javac AND status = 
> OPEN AND type = Bug order by created asc
>
> Several of the old bugs that are still around are stuck waiting on JLS 
> clarification. I wonder whether that has happened, or whether JLS 
> clarification is itself somehow stuck (a thought that's slightly 
> disturbing).
>
> -Archie
>
> -- 
>
> Archie L. Cobbs
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mail.openjdk.org/pipermail/compiler-dev/attachments/20221021/f7a801c1/attachment-0001.htm>