I spent hour on Friday trying to create a small test case, but without
success so far. It seems notable that the example you list in your
source code is a lambda whose body contains 3 levels of nested anon classes.
In general, I strongly dislike having to debug javac code involving
large external build systems like Maven and Gradle, but I guess it may
become necessary here.
At any rate, I note you have a workaround, since you say you have ways
to run javadoc that does not trigger the error.
-- Jon
On 1/8/18 1:13 PM, Jason Tedor wrote:
Thanks Jonathan. To clarify, is that something that you will do or are
you expecting me to take action here?
On Fri, Jan 5, 2018 at 4:35 PM Jonathan Gibbons
<[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
Jason,
Thanks for the experiments and report. It sounds like we can make
a very reduced test case from that.
-- Jon
On 01/05/2018 01:30 PM, Jason Tedor wrote:
Thanks again for your replies Jonathan, this is helpful.
> I see that one possibility may be the presence of source code
on the source or class path, and equivalent previously-compiled
classes on the class path.
This is indeed the case, the compiled classes are on the
-classpath passed to the invocation of javadoc; we are not
specifying --source-path in our invocation.
> If that is what is happening for you, that may indicate a bug
in javac (which is the front end for javadoc, and which should
handle this situation).
Indeed.
> The workaround for you would be to try and ensure that you
don't have sources and equivalent compiled classes on your
source/classpath for javadoc.
If I remove compiling these classes before running javadoc then
this error does not occur.
> I am following up with javac folk to see if there is an issue
there.
Thanks, please let me know what you find out.
Again, thank you for your help.
On Thu, Jan 4, 2018 at 7:40 PM Jonathan Gibbons
<[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
On 01/04/2018 04:37 PM, Jonathan Gibbons wrote:
>
> One other change may be relevant: JDK-8177588, in which we made
> javadoc be more strict when it encounters compilation
errors. This was
> fix in JDK 10 b10.
>
We can probably take this off the table, as the fix
originally appeared
in JDK 9.
-- Jon
