[nomerge] Re-STARR onto 2.12.18-M1 and add JDK 20 (early access) to daily CI matrix#10306
[nomerge] Re-STARR onto 2.12.18-M1 and add JDK 20 (early access) to daily CI matrix#10306SethTisue merged 3 commits intoscala:2.12.xfrom
Conversation
|
"Unsupported class file major version 64" — that seems puzzling, since ASM 9.4 has did we somehow botch #10185 ? |
|
or maybe we need to re-STARR? maybe the reference compiler needs to support JDK 20 before this will pass I'll try re-STARRing locally and see if it helps |
|
The problem is reproducible locally with Confirmed that re-STARR-ing locally makes the problem go away, as expected. |
37e2dac to
61dbacc
Compare
|
we're down to a manageable number of failures: and many of these might just be deprecation warnings |
| min | ||
| } | ||
| def min = allocations.min | ||
| } |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I wondered if it was written this way in order to avoid allocating, but we have the same change on the 2.13 branch: d79f001
| isPublic = true | ||
| privateWithin = <none> | ||
| ============ | ||
| #partest !java20+ |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I wondered if this might be some kind of regression, but on 2.13.x the same change was already made in d943572
c606dba to
2530369
Compare
|
I've removed the "DON'T MERGE ME -- temporarily enable GHA on this PR only" commit now that I've seen green runs. |
| Test_2.scala:2: error: exception during macro expansion: | ||
| java.lang.Exception | ||
| at Macros$.impl(Macros_1.scala:6) | ||
| #partest java20+ |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
could be java19+ so it runs on my machine. The test was previously tweaked to avoid line numbers in stack traces. I think partest still supports filter pragmas that might be good enough.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
personally I can only get interested in 8, 11, 17, latest; I’ve made a conscious decision not to get finer grained than that without specific motivation
There was a problem hiding this comment.
In my "other" PR, I added a filter, which is only slightly laborious for me as an enthusiastic contributor.
I've also considered that #partest could be ditched in favor of splitting tests into javaVersion: 17+ etc. Then partest --update-check works seamlessly again.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
hmm. not obvious to me where the other PR is, so I could see what you mean?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I almost tagged you. This is the check file I accidentally --updated and overwrote pragmas. 3c69c61
There was a problem hiding this comment.
karma ran over my pragma
we gave 18 and 19 a pass, but I think enough change has accumulated that it's time we tackle this, or at least see what would be involved