RFR 8154270: javac wrongly rejects some class literals as annotation element values
jonathan.gibbons at oracle.com
Wed Apr 27 15:00:03 UTC 2016
Yes, I verified that as well, so we're good to push the patch.
On 04/27/2016 06:24 AM, Jeremy Manson wrote:
> FWIW, it is correct for new files we contribute to have Google
> copyright. As Liam points out, we've done that before in multiple
> It doesn't make any difference to the GPL or Oracle's ability to
> On Thu, Apr 21, 2016 at 4:59 PM, Liam Miller-Cushon <cushon at google.com
> <mailto:cushon at google.com>> wrote:
> Thanks for the review! The updated patch is attached.
> * since the issue can be exposed in two ways (reflection and
> separate compilation), I'd like to see two tests; you have one
> for reflection - having also the other for separate
> compilation would be great (since that area tends to get
> To confirm, do you mean the "javac -implicit:none Other.java"
> example in the original thread? I added that to the test.
> I also thought about testing against a bad class file, but that
> doesn't exercise anything in the patch and I don't have a good way
> to generate a class with the problem (ASM won't write classes with
> this issue, and now javac won't either).
> * I'm not a lawyer - and I'm not sure whether the copyright
> header in your test is correct ;-)
> Oops. Any concerns with using the same header (except for the
> date) as this:
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the compiler-dev