Hi Goetz, > > And I see much more differences if I compare the diffs. > > Please explain. >
unfortunately, the udiffs of the webrev look different in quite some parts to what you see when you look at the commit on the hg web server (http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk/jdk/rev/ba51515b64e5), although those are the same. There were only 3 rejects when I applied the change to jdk11u (you could try this yourself). > This is a big change, and it seems a lot more changed than resolving > Hunks. Some hunks are missing altogether. > > For example, > http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk/jdk/rev/ba51515b64e5, > ZipFileSystem 2341 > 2.341- IndexNode inode = new IndexNode(cen, nlen, pos); > 2.342+ IndexNode inode = new IndexNode(cen, pos, nlen); > Is missing in your change. The constructor IndexNode(byte[] cen, int noff, int nlen, int pos) (jdk11u) vs. IndexNode(byte[] cen, int pos, int nlen) (jdk11) was actually the part where the failing hunks originated. There was another patch pre 8034802 in jdk12 which changed signature: IndexNode(byte[] cen, int noff, int nlen, int pos) -to IndexNode(byte[] cen, int nlen, int pos). 8034802 did this change then: IndexNode(byte[] cen, int nlen, int pos) -> IndexNode(byte[] cen, int pos, int nlen) I chose not to touch this part but maybe this change should change the constructor from IndexNode(byte[] cen, int noff, int nlen, int pos) -> IndexNode(byte[] cen, int noff, int pos, int nlen), though, to take over this change of order in arguments. It's a package private constructor that is only called in one spot. What do you think? Thanks & Best regards Christoph
