On 2/4/13 2:48 PM, Coleen Phillimore wrote:
Also the file,
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~dcubed/8007420-webrev/0-jdk8-tl/test/java/lang/instrument/RedefineSubclassWithTwoInterfacesImpl_1.java.html
Is exactly the same as the file
RedefineSubclassWithTwoInterfacesImpl.java
Isn't one supposed to be derived from Target_1 rather than Target or
different in some way?
The "_1" stuffis just for version naming purposes. The actual
class name has to be the same between Foo.java and Foo_1.java.
In this particular bug's case, we only needed to redefine
RedefineSubclassWithTwoInterfacesImpl with an EMCP version
to tickle the bug. That's why there are no differences
between RedefineSubclassWithTwoInterfacesImpl.java and
RedefineSubclassWithTwoInterfacesImpl_1.java.
Good eyes though.
Can you put a comment about why there are no differences but it's a
different file?
Yes. How about the following?
$ diff
test/java/lang/instrument/RedefineSubclassWithTwoInterfacesImpl.java{.cr0,}
23a24,27
> // Reproducing this bug only requires an EMCP version of the
> // RedefineSubclassWithTwoInterfacesImpl class so
> // RedefineSubclassWithTwoInterfacesImpl.java and
> // RedefineSubclassWithTwoInterfacesImpl_1.java are identical.
$ diff
test/java/lang/instrument/RedefineSubclassWithTwoInterfacesImpl_1.java{.cr0,}
23a24,27
> // Reproducing this bug only requires an EMCP version of the
> // RedefineSubclassWithTwoInterfacesImpl class so
> // RedefineSubclassWithTwoInterfacesImpl.java and
> // RedefineSubclassWithTwoInterfacesImpl_1.java are identical.
so both files are still identical, but now there is an explanation.
Dan
