RFR: JDK-8306584: Start of release updates for JDK 22 [v3]

[Joe Darcy]

On Wed, 31 May 2023 18:02:09 GMT, Jan Lahoda <jlahoda at openjdk.org> wrote:

>> Joe Darcy has updated the pull request with a new target base due to a merge or a rebase. The pull request now contains 24 commits:
>> 
>>  - Merge branch 'master' into JDK-8306584
>>  - Merge branch 'master' into JDK-8306584
>>  - Merge branch 'master' into JDK-8306584
>>  - Sync in symbol changes for JDK 21 build 24.
>>  - Merge branch 'master' into JDK-8306584
>>  - Merge branch 'master' into JDK-8306584
>>  - Merge branch 'master' into JDK-8306584
>>  - Minor test fixes.
>>  - Merge branch 'master' into JDK-8306584
>>  - Update symbol files to JDK 21 b23.
>>  - ... and 14 more: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/compare/cb40db05...376dbe26
>
> src/jdk.compiler/share/classes/com/sun/tools/javac/jvm/ClassFile.java line 127:
> 
>> 125:         V64(64, 0),   // JDK 20
>> 126:         V65(65, 0),   // JDK 21
>> 127:         V66(66, 0);   // JDK 22
> 
> A very small nit/suggestion - it should be possible to do:
> 
> V66(66, 0),   //JDK 22
> ;
> 
> 
> (i.e. ending the enum constant with `,`, and putting the semicolon on a new line.) This way adding a new constant would mean just one line addition, no modification. (The same could be done for other enums.)

Updated.

> test/langtools/tools/javac/versions/Versions.java line 93:
> 
>> 91:         TWENTY(false,    "64.0", "20", Versions::checksrc20),
>> 92:         TWENTY_ONE(false,"65.0", "21", Versions::checksrc21),
>> 93:         TWENTY_TWO(false,"66.0", "22", Versions::checksrc21);
> 
> Should there be `checksrc22` instead of `checksrc21`? Or is that done later?

Good catch. I have a refactoring of the test planned which will eliminate the explicit "checksrc$N" methods.

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

PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/13567#discussion_r1212284124
PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/13567#discussion_r1212283880