> On 12 Dec 2017, at 09:52, joe darcy <joe.da...@oracle.com> wrote: > > Hi Paul, > > There is sense in working in including the class file version update at the > same time if the added complexity doesn't delay the changes. >
I sense it should be so complex and delay since the additional code changes can be copied from the prior changes which recently went through significant review. If it helps, and since i am proposing additional work, i can merge in such changes into your patch. > Did the patch for the increment to 54 require previous changes in the bundled > ASM? > The increment in and of itself requires only minimal changes to the internal ASM, it does not require the integration of a new version of ASM. Constant dynamic only requires a minimal update to the internal ASM to skip over the new constant pool entry, since we don’t currently use ASM process or generate constant dynamic entries. Paul. > Thanks, > > -Joe > > > On 12/12/2017 9:31 AM, Paul Sandoz wrote: >> Hi Joe, >> >> I would like to see the class file version increment [*] in the same patch >> (the unified repo makes this easier now). >> >> Then we have everything in one changeset (except for any ctsym changes?) >> that can be easily templated when the next increment is required, since we >> will be doing this far more regularly from now on. >> >> Are there any technical impediments as to why this would be problematic? >> >> Thanks, >> Paul. >> >> [*] here is the increment to 54 >> http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk/jdk/rev/89829dd3cc54 >> >
