Security fixes are back; other fixes can go in. Time for build 18?

[Jonathan Gibbons]

Andrew John Hughes wrote:
> 2009/12/8 Jonathan Gibbons <Jonathan.Gibbons at sun.com>:
>   
>> Joseph D. Darcy wrote:
>>     
>>> [snip]
>>>       
>>> I'm open to OpenJDK 6 langtools  being made Werror clean as judged by JDK
>>> 7, but backporting the fixes may be nontrivial.  (The Werror checking in JDK
>>> 7's javac is more stringent than that in OpenJDK 6.)
>>>
>>> -Joe
>>>       
>> Joe,
>>
>> I will look at this -- but I think the correct solution is simply to fix
>> warnings and not try backporting anything.
>>
>> -- Jon
>>
>>
>>     
>
> Generally speaking, I think you're right -- there seems to be a lot of
> refactoring going on that we don't want to risk putting into 6.
>
> The javap changeset however
> http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk7/jdk7/langtools/rev/7708bd6d800de34
> seems to fix a lot of issues.  How risky does backporting this seem?
> It applies pretty cleanly.
>   

If we were to consider backporting the new javap,  it would be more 
appropriate to take the latest javap/classfile sources as a starting 
point, rather than that one changeset. However, there are significant 
changes in the command line options, so I'm not sure that backporting it 
is acceptable from that point of view, and the output is different 
enough that it might cause problems for some folk.

-- Jon
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/jdk6-dev/attachments/20091208/7b27841a/attachment.html