Jonathan: If it helps, I can show you how to use Gradle to produce the arguments that are passed to the javadoc command line, and then you'll have a pure javadoc command line that you can use to reproduce the issue?
On Mon, Jan 8, 2018 at 4:31 PM Jonathan Gibbons <[email protected]> wrote: > 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]> 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]> 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 >>> >> >> >
