So is there a missing file here or not ?
-phil.
On 05/26/2016 12:12 AM, Semyon Sadetsky wrote:
I am sorry for any misunderstanding I may have caused.
That was your request in
http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/swing-dev/2016-April/005773.html :
>I think we can/should quickly fix the new ordinal() usage and file a
>separate bug for the GTKEngine usage.
I just fulfilled it. But, my fault, I missed one place to convert
ordinal() to getNumber().
Yes, the 8154992 is about the remaining ordinal() refactoring that we
postponed because there are plenty of them in the code and it may take
a noticeable time to fix them all.
--Semyon
On 5/25/2016 11:09 PM, Phil Race wrote:
Where did getNumber() come from ? Did you miss a file in the review ?
Under what circumstances does this fail as I did not notice such a
failure.
And yet this sounds like what was pointed out by Sergey during the
GTK 3 review here :
http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/swing-dev/2016-March/005495.html
and I thought was going to be fixed before it was pushed as requested
here :-
http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/swing-dev/2016-April/005773.html
The request for a separate bug which you filed here :-
https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8154992
was for the pre-existing usages.
-phil.
On 05/25/2016 10:54 AM, Semyon Sadetsky wrote:
Hello,
Please review fix for JDK9:
bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8157827
webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~ssadetsky/8157827/webrev.00/
In the Desktop initialization procedure GtkVersions#ordinal() was
used instead of GtkVersions#getNumber().
--Semyon
