Early Access builds of JDK 8u112 b03, JDK 9 b128 are available on java.net

[Rory O'Donnell]

Hi Evgeny,

Fix for JDK-8073658 Invalid annotations in bridge methods is included in b127.
Can you confirm fix?

Early Access b128 for JDK 9 is available on java.net, summary of  changes are listed here .

Early Access b127 ( #5304) for JDK 9 with Project Jigsaw is available on java.net, summary of  changes are listed  here

Early Access b03 for JDK 8u112 is available on java.net, summary of  changes are listed  here

Alan Bateman posted new EA builds contain initial implementation of current proposals , more info [0]

The jigsaw/jake forest has been updated with an initial implementation of the proposals that Mark brought to the jpms-spec-experts mailing list last week. For those that don't build from source then the EA build/downloads [1] has also been refreshed.

Rgds,Rory

[0] http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/jigsaw-dev/2016-July/008467.html
[1] https://jdk9.java.net/jigsaw/

-- 
Rgds,Rory O'Donnell
Quality Engineering Manager
Oracle EMEA , Dublin, Ireland 

[Evgeny Mandrikov]

Hi Rory,

Excuse me for the delay - was fighting with some consequences of things introduced in JDK 9 EA b127.

But first things first: JDK-8073658 - as far as I can see ( actual reporter is +Marc R. Hoffmann ) is fixed.

About b127 - while testing b128 we've been beaten by https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8157181 , which is actually a good thing since reveals bug on our side. Fix is on its way ( btw +Marc R. Hoffmann could you please have a look? ) and all details can be found in https://github.com/jacoco/jacoco/pull/434 What was a bit surprising for me: is that it was not enough to execute tests on JVM 9 EA - you actually must compile code into bytecode version introduced with 9 to trigger this additional check. The check itself is very good in my opinion - it is quite important to not violate rules described in Java Virtual Machine Specification and hence expectation of JIT. But the need to change target version seems weird - I believe that many projects might relatively easily start testing 9 just as runtime environment, while change of a target might require bigger investment as for example described in our case in https://github.com/jacoco/jacoco/issues/411 So I can even say that we are accidentally came across this check and its consequences. Thus if my voice counts, then would be great to remove conditional behaviour of this check. Moreover seems that this was actually discussed and agreed in JDK-8157181 and connected tickets, so from the outer side where I am state of a ticket doesn't look "resolved".

And at the end - all fine with JDK 8u122 b03  on our side and (not counting story above) all fine with JDK 9 b128.

Best regards,

Evgeny

[Rory O'Donnell]

Hi Evgeny,

Probably best to voice any concerns on the hotspot-dev mailing list.

By the way the following builds are available:

Early Access b130 for JDK 9 is available on java.net, summary of  changes are listed here .

Early Access b129 ( #5332) for JDK 9 with Project Jigsaw is available on java.net, summary of  changes are listed  here

Early Access b04 for JDK 8u112 is available on java.net, summary of  changes are listed  here

Rgds,Rory

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "JaCoCo Developers" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to jacoco-dev+...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Evgeny Mandrikov]

Hi Rory,

First of all: excuse me, if my statements sounded too strong - they were not, just a hard week.

I'll try to reach hotspot-dev on this subject.

And all fine on our side with JDK 9 b130 , JDK 9 with Project Jigsaw and JDK 8u112 b04.

Thanks,

Evgeny

[Rory O'Donnell]

Hi Evgeny,

Of course not, your comments were fine.

Rgds,Rory

[Evgeny Mandrikov]

Hi Rory,

We continued digging deeper around our implementation to fix implications of JDK-8157181 and +Marc R. Hoffmann found a JVM crash, which is reported as JI-9042792. Could be noted in addition to details in report - that this is also reproducible on latest JDK9 EA b131.

[Rory O'Donnell]

Hi Evgeny,

Updated the bug with your comment around JDK 9 b131!

Rgds,Rory

[Rory O'Donnell]

https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8163969

Rgds,Rory

[Evgeny Mandrikov]

Some additional details: after bisection (log attached) seems that this is consequence of https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8043275 changes.

Best regards,

Evgeny

[Evgeny Mandrikov]

One more, now from me, around the same subject presented in JDK 9ea b131 reported as JI-9042842

[Rory O'Donnell]

Thanks Evgeny, will let you know the JBS id later.

Rgds,Rory

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "JaCoCo Developers" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to jacoco-dev+...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Evgeny Mandrikov]

Thanks!

On Thu, Aug 18, 2016 at 11:00 AM Muneer Kolarkunnu <abdul.ko...@oracle.com> wrote:

Hi Evgeny,

 

JDK id for this incident is : https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8164302

 

Regards,

Muneer

[Evgeny Mandrikov]

For the record: finally posted our concerns about JDK-8157181 in hotspot-dev mailing list - http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/hotspot-dev/2016-December/025542.html

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to jacoco-dev+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Rory O'Donnell]

Thanks Evgeny, I noticed David Holmes has replied.

Rgds,Rory