Spec clarification for RuntimeVisibleParameterAnnotations and synthetic/mandated parameters

[Alex Buckley]

Isn't this covered by the comments in JDK-8024694 ?

Alex

On 10/7/2013 11:12 AM, Eric McCorkle wrote:
> I would like to request clarification on the proper behavior of javac
> when generating RuntimeVisibleParameterAnnotations attributes for
> methods with synthetic/mandated parameters.
>
> Right now, the behavior of javac seems to be to omit these parameters
> from the generated attribute.  This causes problems with
> java.lang.reflect.Executable.getParameterAnnotations() and
> java.lang.reflect.Parameter.getAnnotations().
>
> Here is an example:
>
> Example code:
>
> import java.lang.reflect.Parameter;
> import java.lang.annotation.*;
>
> public class InnerClassAnnotationTest {
>
>      public static void main(String[] args) {
>          Parameter p = E.class.getConstructors()[0].getParameters()[1];
>          p.getAnnotations();
>      }
>
>      @Retention(RetentionPolicy.RUNTIME)
>      public @interface Ann {}
>
>      public class E {
>          public E(@Ann Object o) {}
>      }
> }
>
>
>
> The output of javap about the constructor is this:
>
>    public InnerClassAnnotationTest$E(InnerClassAnnotationTest,
> java.lang.Object);
>      descriptor: (LInnerClassAnnotationTest;Ljava/lang/Object;)V
>      flags: ACC_PUBLIC
>      Code:
>        stack=2, locals=3, args_size=3
>           0: aload_0
>           1: aload_1
>           2: putfield      #1                  // Field
> this$0:LInnerClassAnnotationTest;
>           5: aload_0
>           6: invokespecial #2                  // Method
> java/lang/Object."<init>":()V
>           9: return
>        LineNumberTable:
>          line 46: 0
>      MethodParameters:
>        Name                           Flags
>        this$0                         final mandated
>        o
>      RuntimeVisibleParameterAnnotations:
>        parameter 0:
>          0: #17()
>
> Note the disparity between MethodParameters and
> RuntimeVisibleParameterAnnotations.
>
>
> I need to know 1) is this an error (I suspect it is), and 2) should it
> be fixed for 8?
>
> Thanks,
> Eric
>