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

[Daniel D. Daugherty]

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