RFR: JDK-8243057: compilation of annotated static record fields fails with NPE

[Vicente Romero]

Hi Jan,

Thanks for the review. the RECORD flag is applied to static fields too 
what about:

boolean isRecordField = isRecordMember &&
         !s.isStatic() &&
         declarationTree.hasTag(VARDEF) &&
         s.owner.kind ==TYP;
?

I have made this change at [1],

Thanks,
Vicente

[1] http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~vromero/8243057/webrev.01/

On 7/21/20 4:50 AM, Jan Lahoda wrote:
> Hi Vicente,
>
> I am sorry, but saying "s.flags_field == $mask" feels somewhat 
> dangerous to me - what if there are other (valid) flags that can be 
> added to record components/fields?
>
> My understanding was that the record members are marked with the 
> RECORD flag, should it be enough to say:
> boolean isRecordField = declarationTree.hasTag(VARDEF) &&
>         (s.flags_field & RECORD) != 0 &&
>         s.owner.kind == TYP;
> ?
>
> Thanks,
>     Jan
>
> On 20. 07. 20 18:53, Vicente Romero wrote:
>> ping, it is a simple review,
>>
>> Vicente
>>
>> On 7/17/20 3:36 PM, Vicente Romero wrote:
>>> Please review fix for [1] at [2]. At method 
>>> Check::validateAnnotation the condition used to determine if a field 
>>> is or not a record field was wrong. As a consequence static fields 
>>> were considered as record fields. This doesn't have any consequence 
>>> unless they are annotated. This patch is fixing this issue.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Vicente
>>>
>>> [1] https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8243057
>>> [2] http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~vromero/8243057/webrev.00/
>>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/compiler-dev/attachments/20200721/bfe73b28/attachment.htm>