https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65539
--- Comment #1 from Stefan Bodewig ---
The changes indicate javac believes your compiler would be javac 1.1, which is
rather strange.
Pretty close to the start Ant will tell you which version of Java it has
detected in verbose output, it will
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65539
--- Comment #2 from Sean Cleary ---
On the Windows environment, the output is:
==
Detected Java version: 1.8 in: C:\IBM\WebSphere\AppServer\java\8.0\jre
Detected OS: Windows 10
==
On a Linux environment, the output is:
==
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65539
--- Comment #3 from Stefan Bodewig ---
does explicitly setting compiler="javac1.8" help?
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65539
--- Comment #4 from Sean Cleary ---
Setting compiler="javac1.8" helped alright, it returned:
1. The correct output in the compilation arguments, the arguments look the
same as Ant 1.10.6 when using Ant 1.10.11.
2. The Java files compiled
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65539
--- Comment #5 from Stefan Bodewig ---
I was wrong about what I initially believed to be the problem, for some reason
your javac doesn't recognize it is running on Java 8 by itself.
Is there a property named "build.compiler" in your build?
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65539
--- Comment #6 from Sean Cleary ---
An echo statement was pushed in just before the javac task for the magic
property:
and the output on Windows and Linux for Ant 1.10.11:
[echo] build.compiler:
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65539
--- Comment #7 from Stefan Bodewig ---
OK, thank you, I can confirm that setting build.compiler to a full class name
explicitly breaks the javac version detection in current master - which clearly
is a bug.
I'm not sure why you are setting
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65539
--- Comment #8 from Sean Cleary ---
If I'm honest, I've no idea why the build.compiler property is being set. It's
legacy code and there is no documentation validating the reason for setting the
property to this value.
Is this right on the
