On Fri, 27 Oct 2023 11:35:54 GMT, Jan Lahoda <jlah...@openjdk.org> wrote:

> Consider a simple module, like:
> 
> module test {}
> 
> 
> And compile it with JDK 22 and JDK 21 using:
> javac --release 21
> 
> The results of the compilations will differ: when compiling with JDK 21, the 
> mandated java.base dependency will get a version, possibly like 
> "21-internal". When compiling with JDK 22, the version of the java.base 
> dependency will be empty.
> 
> This is a) because `module-info.class`es in `ct.sym` do not have any module 
> version set; b) for JDK N, `--release N` is not using `ct.sym`, but rather 
> `lib/modules`, which may contain a range of version specifiers.
> 
> This patch does two changes:
> a) tweaks the `module-info.class`es in `ct.sym`, so that they contain a 
> simple version. For `--release N`, the version is `N`.
> b) tweaks the whole build so that `ct.sym` is used always for `--release`, a 
> `lib/modules` is never used. I.e. the appropriate classfiles are copied into 
> `ct.sym`. This not only allows for a general approach to module versions, but 
> simplifies the `--release` handling in javac, and should enable future 
> improvements. This is, however, a relatively big change.
> 
> The use of `lib/modules` for `--release <current>` was made to improve build 
> performance, but the build has been updated since this has been introduced, 
> so the slowdown caused by rebuilding `ct.sym` should be much lower now.
> 
> With these changes, compiling with `--release N` should record the same 
> dependency versions in `module-info` on JDK N and JDK N + 1.

This pull request has now been integrated.

Changeset: fc314740
Author:    Jan Lahoda <jlah...@openjdk.org>
URL:       
https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/commit/fc314740e947b2338ab9e4d4fce0c4f52de56c4b
Stats:     730 lines in 14 files changed: 470 ins; 184 del; 76 mod

8318913: The module-infos for --release data do not contain pre-set versions

Co-authored-by: Erik Joelsson <er...@openjdk.org>
Reviewed-by: vromero, ihse

-------------

PR: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/16400

Reply via email to