Review request for JDK-8014230: Compilation incorrectly succeeds with inner class constructor with 254 parameters

[Jonathan Gibbons]

Good to go!

-- Jon

On 06/25/2013 07:03 AM, Eric McCorkle wrote:
> Are there any more comments on this one, or is it good to go?
>
> On 06/20/13 14:38, Eric McCorkle wrote:
>> Thank you for the suggestions, Alex.  I have applied all except the
>> change to "threshold".  I named it as such because the test asserts that
>> methods with "threshold" arguments should pass, but ones with
>> "threshold" + 1 should fail.  It seems to exactly describe the meaning.
>>
>> A new webrev has been posted:
>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~emc/8014230/
>>
>> Also, there are several successful JPRT runs (minus a known issue).
>>
>> Since Jon made comments earlier, I would like to hear from him before I
>> commit.
>>
>> On 06/19/13 17:57, Alex Buckley wrote:
>>> - There is less coverage because NumArgs1/2 tested instance and static
>>> methods while the new MethodArgs only tests instance methods.
>>>
>>> - There is no such thing as a static inner class. An inner class is
>>> non-static by definition (JLS7 8.1.3). The term StaticInnerClass should
>>> be replaced with StaticNestedClass throughout.
>>>
>>> - For grouping purposes, it would be good to prefix ConstructorArgs and
>>> MethodArgs with "ToplevelClass". Later, we'll have an "AnonClass" prefix
>>> too.
>>>
>>> - Might rename threshold to maxArgs in NumArgs. (Is a threshold
>>> something you can step up to but not on, or something you can step on?)
>>>
>>> - Might rename retty ("return type") to result, since the field can
>>> store "void" and void is not a [return] type (JLS7 8.4.5)
>>>
>>> - Might rename ClassNestingDef to NestedClassBuilder.
>>>
>>> Alex
>>>
>>> On 6/19/2013 12:08 PM, Eric McCorkle wrote:
>>>> Added a new constructor to Main that allows tests to pass in their own
>>>> Log, facilitating much more precise tests of what errors the compilers
>>>> generates.
>>>>
>>>> I also rolled all the arg limit tests into a general framework.
>>>>
>>>> Webrev is here:
>>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~emc/8014230/
>>>>
>>>> On 06/14/13 16:30, Jonathan Gibbons wrote:
>>>>> There are two solutions.
>>>>>
>>>>> For a one-off test, the standard technique is to use a golden file
>>>>> in conjunctions with rawDiagnostics.   The combination is
>>>>> "somewhat frail" but nowhere near "incredibly frail".  The technique
>>>>> has served us well for many years now.
>>>>>
>>>>> If you are driving javac through the Compiler API, you can register
>>>>> a DiagnosticListener, and verify the characteristics of the Diagnostic
>>>>> objects passed to report.
>>>>>
>>>>> -- Jon
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 06/14/2013 01:14 PM, Eric McCorkle wrote:
>>>>>> Is there a more convenient API for checking error messages?  Golden
>>>>>> will
>>>>>> make for an incredibly frail test, I think.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 06/14/13 15:46, Jonathan Gibbons wrote:
>>>>>>> The change to Gen looks OK, but the tests look weak.  At a minimum, I
>>>>>>> would expect to see the test check the validity of the error message
>>>>>>> that is generated; even better would be to generate the test cases on
>>>>>>> the fly.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> -- Jon
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 06/14/2013 11:29 AM, Eric McCorkle wrote:
>>>>>>>> Hello,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Please review this patch, which addresses a problem with javac not
>>>>>>>> taking inner this parameters into account when determining if
>>>>>>>> there are
>>>>>>>> too many parameters to a function.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The webrev is here:
>>>>>>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~emc/8014230/
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The bug report is here:
>>>>>>>> http://bugs.sun.com/view_bug.do?bug_id=8014230
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>> Eric