JVM/TI code review request (XS and M) (7182152)

[Coleen Phillimore]

Comment looks good!   Thanks!
Coleen

On 2/4/2013 5:09 PM, Daniel D. Daugherty wrote:
> On 2/4/13 2:48 PM, Coleen Phillimore wrote:
>>>
>>>> Also the file,
>>>>
>>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~dcubed/8007420-webrev/0-jdk8-tl/test/java/lang/instrument/RedefineSubclassWithTwoInterfacesImpl_1.java.html 
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Is exactly the same as the file 
>>>> RedefineSubclassWithTwoInterfacesImpl.java
>>>>
>>>> Isn't one supposed to be derived from Target_1 rather than Target 
>>>> or different in some way?
>>>
>>> The "_1" stuffis just for version naming purposes. The actual
>>> class name has to be the same between Foo.java and Foo_1.java.
>>>
>>> In this particular bug's case, we only needed to redefine
>>> RedefineSubclassWithTwoInterfacesImpl with an EMCP version
>>> to tickle the bug. That's why there are no differences
>>> between RedefineSubclassWithTwoInterfacesImpl.java and
>>> RedefineSubclassWithTwoInterfacesImpl_1.java.
>>>
>>> Good eyes though.
>>
>>
>> Can you put a comment about why there are no differences but it's a 
>> different file?
>
> Yes. How about the following?
>
> $ diff 
> test/java/lang/instrument/RedefineSubclassWithTwoInterfacesImpl.java{.cr0,}
> 23a24,27
> > // Reproducing this bug only requires an EMCP version of the
> > // RedefineSubclassWithTwoInterfacesImpl class so
> > // RedefineSubclassWithTwoInterfacesImpl.java and
> > // RedefineSubclassWithTwoInterfacesImpl_1.java are identical.
>
> $ diff 
> test/java/lang/instrument/RedefineSubclassWithTwoInterfacesImpl_1.java{.cr0,}
> 23a24,27
> > // Reproducing this bug only requires an EMCP version of the
> > // RedefineSubclassWithTwoInterfacesImpl class so
> > // RedefineSubclassWithTwoInterfacesImpl.java and
> > // RedefineSubclassWithTwoInterfacesImpl_1.java are identical.
>
> so both files are still identical, but now there is an explanation.
>
> Dan
>