[10] RFR 8191510: Bump classfile version number to 54

David Holmes david.holmes at oracle.com
Sun Dec 3 21:13:29 UTC 2017

Hi Paul,

Don't you also need to update:



> The only relevant test i could find was the specific test added to HS for the 53 change:
>   test/hotspot/jtreg/runtime/classFileParserBug/Class53.jasm
> but how valuable is such a test? I did not think it terribly useful so i did not add one for 54.

It is the validation test for the change made in


It's a sanity check to ensure we can actually read the new classfile 
version and haven't made a silly mistake somewhere. Here's one I 
prepared earlier for the nestmates work in the Valhalla project: :)



On 2/12/2017 9:32 AM, Paul Sandoz wrote:
> Hi,
> This is an initial review request to increment the class file version of 10 from 53 to 54.
>    http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~psandoz/jdk10/JDK-8188870-version-bump-54/webrev/ <http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~psandoz/jdk10/JDK-8188870-version-bump-54/webrev/>
> through searches and changeset history i think i got all the places in the source, nice to see it in one place, but please check closely in case i missed something.
> The intent is that the class file version will increment with every major release (regardless of if there are no features that mandate a class file change). Ideally we should be doing this early on in the release schedule, this case is an exception for 10, and i expect we shall update the version for 11 early on (and this patch will help prepare for that)
> The lower bound, 6, for the release/source/target options will not change for 10. We will for future releases review the policy of "one plus three back” in light of the new release process and deal with that separately from any version change.
> The patch currently clamps the version of javac generated module-info.class files to 53. This is due to a restriction in the build process where the boot JDK 9 jar tool is used, which will fail when it attempts to process 54 versioned module-info.class files. We hope to fix that (see JDK-8192771) and i can update the patch accordingly.
> Thanks,
> Paul.

More information about the jdk-dev mailing list