RFR: JDK-8190452: javac should not add MethodParameters attributes to v51 and earlier class files
Jonathan Gibbons
jonathan.gibbons at oracle.com
Sun Feb 4 04:59:34 UTC 2018
Liam,
From a minor stylistic point of view, we generally place the test
description (the comment beginning @test) after the legal header, and
before any code like package and import statements
-- Jon
On 2/3/18 6:27 PM, Liam Miller-Cushon wrote:
> I reworked the test to use class reading, and added the -Xlint:option
> warning.
>
> Here's the updated patch:
> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~cushon/8190452/webrev.02/
> <http://cr.openjdk.java.net/%7Ecushon/8190452/webrev.02/>
>
> On Sat, Feb 3, 2018 at 10:39 AM, Vicente Romero
> <vicente.romero at oracle.com <mailto:vicente.romero at oracle.com>> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 02/03/2018 12:37 AM, Liam Miller-Cushon wrote:
>> Hi Vicente, thanks for the review!
>>
>> I inlined the golden files into the test class. I don't think
>> inlining Lib.java works with the current approach of using
>> `@compile --release 7/8` and reflection to access the parameter
>> names, because the reflective APIs were added in 8. I could
>> rewrite the test to use class reading instead of reflection if
>> you prefer.
>
> yes I was thinking about class reading but I'm OK with the current
> version of the patch
>
>>
>> Here's the updated webrev:
>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~cushon/8190452/webrev.01/
>> <http://cr.openjdk.java.net/%7Ecushon/8190452/webrev.01/>
>>
>> > Regarding your questions about what to do with the -Xlint:X
>> options. I don't have any opinion on one way or the other, is
>> there any reason to change them?
>>
>> I thought it was potentially surprising that -parameters will now
>> be silently ignored for Java 7 and earlier language levels.
>> Warning about that flag combination would make the new behaviour
>> more discoverable.
>>
>> Since the bug shipped in 9 and 10 there are some <v52 class files
>> with MethodParameters in the wild, and I've seen cases where it
>> broke builds using -Xlint:classfile and -Werror.
>>
>> I don't think either of those are common problems. If you think
>> we should leave the -Xlint handling as-is that sounds good to me.
>
> as discussed off-line with Jon, yes please add the warning, but
> feel free to do it as part of this bug or in a different one.
>
> Vicente
>
>>
>> On Fri, Feb 2, 2018 at 6:17 AM, Vicente Romero
>> <vicente.romero at oracle.com <mailto:vicente.romero at oracle.com>> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Liam,
>>
>> The fix looks OK, regarding the test, I don't see the need
>> for the two golden files as they can be constants in the test
>> per se. In addition, the whole test could be self contained
>> in only one class that compiles the Lib.java source.
>> Regarding your questions about what to do with the -Xlint:X
>> options. I don't have any opinion on one way or the other, is
>> there any reason to change them?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Vicente
>>
>>
>> On 02/01/2018 01:56 PM, Liam Miller-Cushon wrote:
>>> Bump. I'm happy to implement either of the alternatives I
>>> mentioned, but was hoping to get feedback on the approach first.
>>>
>>> On Wed, Jan 17, 2018 at 11:51 AM, Liam Miller-Cushon
>>> <cushon at google.com <mailto:cushon at google.com>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Please review a fix for JDK-8190452. The change causes
>>> javac to not emit MethodParameters attributes when
>>> targeting v51 class files.
>>>
>>> The change implements the suggestion from this thread:
>>> http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/compiler-dev/2018-January/011579.html
>>> <http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/compiler-dev/2018-January/011579.html>
>>>
>>> There are two related changes that may be worth considering:
>>> * now that -parameters will be ignored when compiling
>>> with --release < 8, should this combination of flags
>>> result in a warning if -Xlint:options is enabled?
>>> * since this wasn't fixed in JDK 9, there are v51 class
>>> files in the wild that contain unexpected
>>> MethodParameters attributes. Should -Xlint:classfile be
>>> relaxed to avoid warning on those?
>>>
>>> bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8190452
>>> <https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8190452>
>>> webrev:
>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~cushon/8190452/webrev.00/
>>> <http://cr.openjdk.java.net/%7Ecushon/8190452/webrev.00/>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/compiler-dev/attachments/20180203/cfd3e0e2/attachment.html>
More information about the compiler-dev
mailing list