Building with a new javac flag

[Kelly O'Hair]

From an IDE perspective, does it make sense to have parameter names, but not line numbers?
Seems like if we just generate the parameter names all the time, and have pack200 strip them out
for the JRE, then we could just generate them all the time.
Then there is no need for an option, just a change to pack200 to remove a few attributes when it is told to
delete debug information in the jre runtime jars?

-kto

On Nov 13, 2012, at 12:50 PM, Alex Buckley wrote:

> On 11/13/2012 4:00 AM, Alan Bateman wrote:
>> This one may be significant enough to me to justify a configure option.
>> On the other hand, "make images profiles" would mean all the resulting
>> images (JDK, JRE, and Compact Profiles) would either all have/not the
>> parameter names.
> 
> The primary reason for storing parameter names in JDK8 class files is to help IDE vendors, so it's fine if only the JDK image has them. We are not making a general promise that any program will be able to find parameter names of core Java Java SE classes at runtime. (Again, please set aside concerns about footprint, compatibility, etc on this list.)
> 
> It sounds like a ./configure option of --enable-parameters could add an option to JAVAC_FLAGS - you say it would affect all images? But Erik said "the value of the option has different defaults depending on jdk variant/profile".
> 
> Where should we look at the new build, given that the parameter feature lives in the jdk8/tl forest?
> 
> Alex