Convert old-style array declarations (was: Re: ByteArrayOutputStream should not have a new writeBytes method in Java)
martinrb at google.com
Mon Oct 1 17:46:59 UTC 2018
Thank you very much for working on these cleanups. I've occasionally done
similar in the past.
I've made big changesets with only one automated change at a time.
So e.g. I would do only
"C-style array declaration"
in one changeset. This is one example of a change that should leave zero
impact on the generated bytecode, and that should be testable, if only by
comparing the .class files for identical size.
One difficulty is that the copy of the source code in openjdk may not be
the "master" copy - it may be imported from some other project, and in
general it's hard to tell.
On Sun, Sep 30, 2018 at 8:40 PM, Tagir Valeev <amaembo at gmail.com> wrote:
> Ok, let's start with smaller thing which is java.desktop. Created a
> JBS issue and posted a patch here:
> > Although cleanup like this is nice, I'll give a word of warning that
> > changes like that can sometimes cause difficulties when there are lots of
> > changes in code which is undergoing different lines of development in
> > branches or repos. If nothing else, I'd consider doing it on a
> > or per-module basis.
> I'm not sure I have enough time to post 70+ reviews for every module
> and track all of them. My volunteering abilities are quite limited :-)
> I think I can manage up to 3-4 separate changesets including already
> posted java.desktop change. If you have suggestions on how to split
> this to several big parts, you are welcome (I don't know how
> "components" are mapped to modules, probably components are big
> enough?). Or probably we can cover only part of modules for now and
> wait for the next volunteer to pick up this.
> With best regards,
> Tagir Valeev.
> On Sat, Sep 29, 2018 at 5:41 AM Sergey Bylokhov
> <Sergey.Bylokhov at oracle.com> wrote:
> > I can review the changes in java.desktop, please use these email alias
> > awt-dev/2d-dev/swing-dev.
> > On 28/09/2018 04:13, Alan Bateman wrote:
> > > As regards doing the entire source base then I think that would be
> > > Due to the complexity of testing, changes to the java.desktop module
> > > pushed to jdk/client repo rather than jdk/jdk so if it's not too
> > > then it might be helper if the patch for java.desktop were a separate
> > > change that gets pushed to jdk/client rather than jdk/jdk.
> > --
> > Best regards, Sergey.
More information about the core-libs-dev