RFR: JDK-8193367: Annotated type variable bounds crash javac

[Maurizio Cimadamore]

Looks ok, I think I'd rather prefer setBound to bound(arg), as the name 
you chose doesn't make assignment explicit.

Long term, I think we should find ways to avoid mutating the bound after 
creation... but I did some experimental work on this, and it's not a 
piece of cake, as you often need mutation when handling recursive bounds 
- e.g. set some initial bound first, then do a subst and set final 
bounds later (I think there's a bunch of methods in Types that use this 
idiom).

Maurizio



On 13/06/18 11:09, B. Blaser wrote:
> Here it is, in attachment.
> It completely privatizes and virtualizes 'TypeVar.bound'.
>
> Apologies for not providing a web-rev, this is still on my to-do list...
>
> Any feedback is welcome (tier1 is OK),
> Bernard
>
> On 11 June 2018 at 20:42, B. Blaser <bsrbnd at gmail.com> wrote:
>> That's what I thought too but I wanted a confirmation before doing the
>> whole job...
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Bernard
>>
>> On 11 June 2018 at 19:23, Maurizio Cimadamore
>> <maurizio.cimadamore at oracle.com> wrote:
>>> I think this patch is a good start, but to be complete, we'd need to
>>> completely virtualize access on the 'bound' field, otherwise we risk turning
>>> this into a whack-a-mole exercise. There are e.g. 30 usages in Types alone,
>>> each of those could lead to issues with type annos.
>>>
>>> Maurizio