xueming.shen at oracle.com
Tue Nov 19 16:15:43 UTC 2013
Yes, I have to pull it back due to the compatibility concern. It appears
the jdk source code itself has
couple places depending on this "incorrect" behavior. The typical usage
is "".split(...), in which the
code tries to access the 0th element without even checking the return
length. I may re-visit this
in jdk9, and may have to provide some mechanism for any possible
compatibility complain, if we
decide to "fix" it.
On 11/19/13 4:09 AM, Weijun Wang wrote:
> b114: 1
> my (previous) own build: 0
> I fetched changes for JDK-8028321 (the un-do) and now it's back to 1.
> So we are keeping this compatibility even if it does not look correct?
> On 11/19/13, 20:03, Alan Bateman wrote:
>> On 19/11/2013 11:48, Weijun Wang wrote:
>>> Is this just changed? jdk8b118 shows 1 and now it's 0.
>> b118 or your own build? I wonder if you have 6559590 but not the un-do.
More information about the core-libs-dev