RFR: JDK-8066619: String(byte[],int,int,int) in String has been deprecated in Manifest and Attributes
Philipp Kunz
philipp.kunz at paratix.ch
Thu Dec 20 06:11:22 UTC 2018
Hi Roger,
I guess I followed it up this time now. I guess my previous patches
were actually based on 54aafb3ba9ab from September 25. And Eclipse
never told me...In difference to the webrev one more line was intended
to be removed: @SuppressWarnings("deprecation") at Manifest#read. New
patch attached.
Philipp
On Wed, 2018-12-19 at 09:44 -0500, Roger Riggs wrote:
> Hi,
>
>
>
> On 12/18/2018 06:00 PM, Philipp Kunz
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >
> > Hi Roger
> >
> >
> >
> > I believe my patch was based on the version at http://hg.open
> > jdk.java.net/jdk/jdk/rev/e84983c2735e.
> > What kind of warnings did you get or what could I have
> > missed?
> >
>
>
>
> When I apply the patch over that version or head, I get errors.
>
>
>
> The Attributes.java I have at that version has an additional read
> method from:
>
> 8207768: Improve exception messages during manifest parsing of
> jar
> archives
>
> commit 51879:6ffa38b8da65f346f04f0ee16487cdc6127b5732
>
> Author: mbaesken
>
> Date: 9/12/18 5:13 AM
> /*
> * Reads attributes from the specified input stream.
> * XXX Need to handle UTF8 values.
> */
> void read(Manifest.FastInputStream is, byte[] lbuf) throws
> IOException {
> read(is, lbuf, null, 0);
> }
>
> @SuppressWarnings("deprecation")
> int read(Manifest.FastInputStream is, byte[] lbuf, String filename,
> int lineNumber) throws IOException {
> String name = null, value;
>
> The reject is because the trailing context does not match; the
> reject patch is attached.
>
> The messages are:
>
> applying 8066619-4.patch
>
> patching file
> src/java.base/share/classes/java/util/jar/Attributes.java
>
> Hunk #5 FAILED at 342
>
> Hunk #7 succeeded at 421 with fuzz 2 (offset 10 lines).
>
> 1 out of 7 hunks FAILED -- saving rejects to file
> src/java.base/share/classes/java/util/jar/Attributes.java.rej
>
> patching file
> src/java.base/share/classes/java/util/jar/Manifest.java
>
> Hunk #1 succeeded at 37 with fuzz 2 (offset 1 lines).
>
> Hunk #3 succeeded at 230 with fuzz 1 (offset 54 lines).
>
> patch failed, unable to continue (try -v)
>
> patch failed, rejects left in working directory
>
> errors during apply, please fix and qrefresh 8066619-4.patch
>
>
> A bit puzzling...
>
>
>
> Thanks, Roger
>
>
>
>
> >
> >
> >
> > Philipp
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Tue, 2018-12-18 at 10:38 -0500, Roger Riggs wrote:
> >
> > > Hi Philipp,
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > I'm satisfied with this update.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > BTW, your workspace may be a bit out of date, the patch
> > > did not
> > > merge without warnings.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > For convenience of other reviewers, here a webrev:
> > >
> > > http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~rriggs/webrev-8066619-3.patc
> > > h/
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Thanks, Roger
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: 8066619.patch
Type: text/x-patch
Size: 30276 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/core-libs-dev/attachments/20181220/1d7edf5b/8066619-0001.patch>
More information about the core-libs-dev
mailing list