[8u] Request for enhancement backport approval for CR JDK-8171194: Exception "Duplicate field name&signature in class file" should report the name and signature of the field
shafi.s.ahmad at oracle.com
Mon Apr 17 05:06:11 UTC 2017
This changes required to improve the ability to diagnose issues in large projects.
The information is available it is just that it is not being emitted in the exception message.
This should fall under improvements to serviceability.
So may I get the approval of enhancement backport of 'JDK-8171194 to jdk8u-dev.
The enhancement backport request id is https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8176800
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Rob McKenna
> Sent: Thursday, March 30, 2017 7:47 PM
> To: Shafi Ahmad <shafi.s.ahmad at oracle.com>
> Cc: jdk8u-dev at openjdk.java.net
> Subject: Re: [8u] Request for enhancement backport approval for CR JDK-
> 8171194: Exception "Duplicate field name&signature in class file" should
> report the name and signature of the field
> Hi Shafi,
> This request has been rejected by the PM as:
> "There isn't any justification as to why this shouldn't simply be done on the
> next major release but should also be backported to already released
> It may help to update the justification in this thread focusing on the
> servicability aspects and the impact on older releases.
> On 29/03/17 11:46, Shafi Ahmad wrote:
> > Hi,
> > May I get the approval of enhancement backport of 'JDK-8171194:
> Exception "Duplicate field name&signature in class file" should report the
> name and signature of the field' to jdk8u-dev.
> > Jdk10 bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8171194
> > "java.lang.ClassFormatError: Duplicate field name&signature in class file
> > From the above Exception message, it is difficult of knowing what is
> triggering the problem.
> > If the class in question is quite big so removing code by trial and error is
> very time consuming.
> > With field name + signature, pinpointing the actual problematic code will be
> easy and time saving.
> > I have tested it with the jprt and jtreg tests.
> > Please note the original bug was raised against jdk8u.
> > Regards,
> > Shafi
More information about the jdk8u-dev