RFR: 8334870: javac does not accept classfiles with certain permitted RuntimeVisibleParameterAnnotations and RuntimeInvisibleParameterAnnotations attributes [v3]

[Vicente Romero]

On Mon, 9 Sep 2024 13:31:06 GMT, Jan Lahoda <jlahoda at openjdk.org> wrote:

>> JVMS 4.7.18 and 4.7.19 say this about the entries in the RuntimeVisibleParameterAnnotations and RuntimeInvisibleParameterAnnotations attributes:
>> 
>>> The i'th entry in the parameter_annotations table may, but is not required to, correspond to the i'th parameter descriptor in the method descriptor (§4.3.3).
>> 
>> When reading classfiles, javac does not follow this specification (which puts no requirements on the number of entries in the attributes), but rather expects as many entries as the `MethodSymbol.type` has (which is either based in the `Signature` attribute, if present, or the method descritor, if `Signature` is not present).
>> 
>> This patch proposes to adjust javac to accept the attributes with any number of entries, implementing a number of heuristics to map the content of the entries in the attributes to the parameters. There are comments in the code explaining the heuristics.
>> 
>> javac will ignore the RuntimeVisibleParameterAnnotations and RuntimeInvisibleParameterAnnotations attributes it cannot handle with a warning.
>
> Jan Lahoda has updated the pull request with a new target base due to a merge or a rebase. The incremental webrev excludes the unrelated changes brought in by the merge/rebase. The pull request contains nine additional commits since the last revision:
> 
>  - Adjusting test to an updated ClassFile API.
>  - Merge branch 'master' into JDK-8024694
>  - Merge branch 'master' into JDK-8024694
>  - Reflecting review feedback.
>  - Adding a new bug number.
>  - Adjusting heuristics.
>  - Fixing tests.
>  - Fixing tests.
>  - 8024694: javac always expects signature attribute for enum constructors

last changes looks good

-------------

Marked as reviewed by vromero (Reviewer).

PR Review: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/19860#pullrequestreview-2290823684