[RFC][icedtea6]: RH706066

[Denis Lila]

> It might help to test with some big programs that we
> know have had problems in this area, such as JBoss AS.

So, I did this, and it compiled successfully.
Do you think we should push this backport then, or should
we just keep it in mind as a solution to similar future
bugs?

Regards,
Denis.

----- Original Message -----
> On 06/02/2011 01:20 PM, Dr Andrew John Hughes wrote:
> > On 12:40 Wed 01 Jun , Denis Lila wrote:
> >> Hi.
> >>
> >> This bug will require a couple of backports:
> >> http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk7/jdk7/langtools/rev/36c4ec4525b4
> >> http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk7/jdk7/langtools/rev/dc550520ed6f
> >>
> >> The attached patch does this. It doesn't contain the regression
> >> tests T6369605a.java and T6369605b.java because even after the
> >> patch was applied these tests were failing.
> >>
> >> I think this is ok though because they fail with ecj and
> >> proprietary javac too. What's probably happening is that
> >> they're assuming other changes in the compiler in addition
> >> to the fix for 6369605.
> >>
> >> I've attached three tests I wrote that were derived from
> >> commons-discovery (whose compilation fails, as detailed
> >> in the bug report). All three compile with ecj and proprietary
> >> javac, but they fail with openjdk javac before this backport.
> >> With the backport they compile.
> >>
> >> I haven't tried compiling commons-discovery yet. I will
> >> do that soon and give an update.
> >>
> >> I ran the langtools regression tests, and there were no changes
> >> in the results.
> >>
> >>
> >> ChangeLog:
> >>
> >> 2011-06-01 Denis Lila <dlila at redhat.com>
> >>
> >> 	* Makefile.am: Apply patches.
> >> 	* NEWS: Update with backports.
> >> 	* patches/openjdk/6938454-generic-type.patch:
> >> 	* patches/openjdk/6369605-unconstrained-type-vars.patch:
> >> 	New patches. Compiler backports.
> >>
> >> Is this good to go (contingent on commons-discovery compiling
> >> successfully)?
> >> The bug was reported against F14, so this should go into 1.9,
> >> 1.10 and head. I would like to let it soak in head for a week
> >> or two before I push to 1.9 and 1.10 though.
> >
> > I'd say put this in HEAD but leave the release branches. We can
> > always back it out if it causes major problems.
> 
> The problem with this approach is that we won't know until HEAD
> becomes
> a release branch for one of the distros. 
> 
> Andrew.