On Wed, 22 Jun 2022 10:50:56 GMT, Alan Bateman wrote:
> > > One other thing, this is a regression in 19 so I assume the PR should be
> > > against openjdk/jdk19 rather than the main line.
> >
> >
> > Since this PR already got a few approvals, I will backport the changeset to
> > the jdk19 lin
On Tue, 21 Jun 2022 18:23:35 GMT, Naoto Sato wrote:
> > One other thing, this is a regression in 19 so I assume the PR should be
> > against openjdk/jdk19 rather than the main line.
>
> Since this PR already got a few approvals, I will backport the changeset to
> the jdk19 line after this PR g
On Tue, 21 Jun 2022 08:55:09 GMT, Alan Bateman wrote:
> My comment was mostly asking if we need to add more tests for
> Files.writeString. I would have expected a test for that method to fail with
> this bug. Maybe we need to create a new issue to expand the tests for this
> method.
Added a t
On Sat, 18 Jun 2022 00:31:06 GMT, Naoto Sato wrote:
>> This is a regression caused by the fix to
>> [JDK-8286287](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8286287), which assumed
>> the method `String.decodeWithDecoder()` was only invoked with cs.REPLACE
>> mode based on the comment "should not hap
On Sat, 18 Jun 2022 00:31:06 GMT, Naoto Sato wrote:
>> This is a regression caused by the fix to
>> [JDK-8286287](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8286287), which assumed
>> the method `String.decodeWithDecoder()` was only invoked with cs.REPLACE
>> mode based on the comment "should not hap
> This is a regression caused by the fix to
> [JDK-8286287](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8286287), which assumed the
> method `String.decodeWithDecoder()` was only invoked with cs.REPLACE mode
> based on the comment "should not happen". Possibly this refers to the
> `String(byte[], int,
