[8u40] Request for approval for 8065132 and 8029012

[Jonathan Gibbons]

Looks OK to me.

-- Jon

On 11/24/2014 10:48 PM, Eric McCorkle wrote:
> Ok, I've sorted out the issues with webrev.  webrev.first is the first
> patch, webrev.second is the second, and webrev.01 is the combined.
>
> On 11/24/14 22:38, Jonathan Gibbons wrote:
>> The webrev looks like it has some problems, such as "duplicate" copies
>> of test files (perhaps by bad composition of the two underlying patches)
>> and the webrev shows strange inconsistencies of some test files having
>> Patch entries and some having Raw entries, and some having both.
>>
>> -- Jon
>>
>> On 11/24/2014 02:21 PM, Seán Coffey wrote:
>>> Eric,
>>>
>>> Since it's not a clean patch application, can you obtain a code review
>>> first before pushing ?
>>>
>>> Approved but subject to above request.
>>>
>>> regards,
>>> Sean.
>>>
>>> On 24/11/2014 21:25, Eric McCorkle wrote:
>>>> Hello,
>>>>
>>>> Please approve the backport for these two fixes, which cause javac to
>>>> generate Runtime[In]Visible[Type,Parameter]Annotations attributes that
>>>> correctly account for synthetic parameters.
>>>>
>>>> Note that the patches did not apply cleanly.  In the case of 8029012,
>>>> langtools SQE staff have added cases to the
>>>> referenceinfos/Constructor.java test that are not present in 8u.  For
>>>> 8065132, diamondification made a behavior-invariant change to the source
>>>> in ClassWriter.java
>>>>
>>>> After these changes, all tests pass.
>>>>
>>>> The JBS issues are here:
>>>> https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8065132
>>>> https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8029012
>>>>
>>>> A webrev containing both changesets is here:
>>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~emc/8065132/