[7u40] Request for approval: 8019381: HashMap.isEmpty is non-final, potential issues for get/remove

[Neil Richards]

Argh, sorry - I didn't spot that the testcase in Sean's jdk7u webrev was
different from what it is in jdk8 :(

I have now promoted the change correcting the testcase (to Sean's jdk7u
version) under the new bug id, 8020625 [1].

Regards,
Neil

[1] http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk7u/jdk7u-dev/jdk/rev/99a30047d18a

On Thu, 2013-07-18 at 11:17 +0800, Shi Jun Zhang wrote:
> Hi Sean,
> 
> I think Neil pushed the changeset in jdk8 directly but actually I 
> provided a webrev for 7u in the original request post.
> 
> Hi Neil,
> 
> Could you help to revert the change and apply the patch in webrev for 
> 7u? The new bug id is 8020625: [TESTBUG] 
> java/util/HashMap/OverrideIsEmpty.java doesn't compile for jdk7u
> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~zhangshj/jdk7u/8019381/webrev.00/
> 
> On 7/17/2013 1:56 AM, Seán Coffey wrote:
> > Thanks Neil.
> >
> > Approval was given for jdk7u40-dev integration. I'll pull this fix 
> > back to that forest but noticed a testcase issue during test runs.
> >
> > The import java.util.function.BiFunction class doesn't exist in jdk7u 
> > and hence, the testcase will need updating. I've logged a new bug for 
> > that :
> > 8020625: [TESTBUG] java/util/HashMap/OverrideIsEmpty.java doesn't 
> > compile for jdk7u
> >
> > Shi Jun - do you want to supply a new patch for this issue ?
> >
> > regards,
> > Sean.
> >
> > On 16/07/2013 14:45, Neil Richards wrote:
> >> Now pushed to jdk7u-dev/jdk [1].
> >>
> >> Regards,
> >> Neil
> >>
> >> [1] http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk7u/jdk7u-dev/jdk/rev/b0b15e373002
> >>
> >>
> >> On Mon, 2013-07-15 at 13:56 +0800, Shi Jun Zhang wrote:
> >>> On 7/13/2013 4:27 AM, Seán Coffey wrote:
> >>>> Shi Jun,
> >>>>
> >>>> this is approved for jdk7u40-dev integration. Please push the fix when
> >>>> you get time.
> >>>>
> >>>> regards,
> >>>> Sean.
> >>>>
> >>>> On 11/07/13 04:06, Shi Jun Zhang wrote:
> >>>>> On 7/11/2013 2:18 AM, Seán Coffey wrote:
> >>>>>> Shi Jun Zhang,
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Let me get QA approval for this issue and I'll get back to you
> >>>>>> shortly. Is this a must fix request for 7u40 ?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> regards,
> >>>>>> Sean.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> On 10/07/13 09:34, Shi Jun Zhang wrote:
> >>>>>>> Hi,
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> I'd like to request for approval to push the following change into
> >>>>>>> 7u40.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Changeset in jdk 8
> >>>>>>> http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk8/tl/jdk/rev/ed111451b77a
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> webrev for jdk7u
> >>>>>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~zhangshj/jdk7u/8019381/webrev.00/
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Reviewed by chegar, mduigou
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Review thread
> >>>>>>> http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/core-libs-dev/2013-June/018450.html 
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> There are some differences between webrev for jdk7u and jdk8. The
> >>>>>>> reason is that some change in jdk8 which invokes isEmpty() is only
> >>>>>>> fixed in jdk8 and not back ported to jdk7u. The jtreg test is
> >>>>>>> modified accordingly.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>> Hi Sean,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> It's not a must fix for 7u40, I think it's OK to put it in later
> >>>>> release.
> >>>>>
> >>> Thanks, Sean.
> >>>
> >>> I will ask Neil to push the change.
> >>>
> >>> Hi Neil,
> >>>
> >>> Could you help to push the changeset into 7u?
> >>>
> >
> 
> 

-- 
Unless stated above:
IBM email: neil_richards at uk.ibm.com
IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with number 741598.
Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6 3AU