Xueming Shen 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(...)[0], 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?
> Thanks
> Max
> 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.
>> -Alan.

More information about the core-libs-dev mailing list