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

[Seán Coffey]

Thanks Neil!

I'll pop this change into jdk7u40-dev also.

regards,
Sean.

On 18/07/13 11:29, Neil Richards wrote:
> 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?
>>>>>
>>