On 01/30/2014 03:46 PM, Alan Bateman wrote:
On 29/01/2014 19:10, Mandy Chung wrote:
On 1/29/2014 5:09 AM, Peter Levart wrote:
Since I don't know what should be the correct behaviour of javac, I
can leave the Reference.java changes as proposed since it compiles
in both cases. Or should I revert the change to declaration of local
variable 'q' ?
I slightly prefer to revert the change to ReferenceQueue<? super
Object> for now as there is no supertype for Object and this looks a
little odd. We can clean this up as a separate fix after we get
clarification from compiler-dev.
I see Peter has posted a question to compiler-dev on this and it can
always be re-visited once it clear why it compiles when both Reference
and ReferenceQueue are in the same compilation unit.
-Alan
I Just commited the version with no change to ReferenceQueue<Object>
line to jdk9/dev. If there is a bug in javac and the code would not
compile as is, the change to this line should be committed as part of
javac fix, right?
Regards, Peter
