review request (M): 6711908: JVM needs direct access to some annotations

[Christian Thalinger]

On Jul 11, 2012, at 3:47 PM, John Rose wrote:

> On Jul 11, 2012, at 12:01 AM, Michael Haupt wrote:
> 
>> @@ -1636,16 +1648,163 @@
>> The code for parsing @Retention deserves a comment highlighting that it is about parsing an annotation with payload (none of the annotations introduced by our work do this).
>> 
>> @@ -2560,10 +2727,11 @@
>> TempNewSymbol sde_symbol is never used.
> 
> Fixed; thanks.
> 
> 
> On Jul 11, 2012, at 2:35 PM, Vladimir Kozlov wrote:
> 
>> c1_GraphBuilder.cpp, can you remove setting bailout message for forced inlining? It should be done proper uniform way for C1 inlining later.
> 
> Done.
> 
>> I think, next assert should check (id >= _unknown && id < _annotation_LIMIT) instead:
>> 
>> +    void set_annotation(ID id) {
>> +      assert((int)id > 0 && (int)id < BitsPerInt, "oob");
> 
> Good.  I added this to the constructor
>   assert((int)_annotation_LIMIT <= (int)sizeof(_annotations_present) * BitsPerByte, "");
> 
>> In header file classFileParser.hpp you should not specify ClassFileParser:: in method parse_classfile_attributes(() declaration:
>> 
>> ClassFileParser::ClassAnnotationCollector* parsed_annotations
> 
> Good catch.
> 
>> Instead of asserts in apply_to() methods we should use guarantee("not implemented") or something.
> 
> Done:
>   +  guarantee(false, "no field annotations yet");

fatal would be the right one; it doesn't take a boolean.

-- Chris

> 
>> 
>> I don't think next should be part of these changes:
>> 
>> +#if 0
>> +    // The parsing of @Retention is for example only.
> 
> Yes, Michael asked about that too.  The point is to show how annotation payloads can be processed.  Somebody will need it at some point.  I'll make it into a comment; is that OK?
> +    // For the record, here is how annotation payloads can be collected.
> +    // Suppose we want to capture @Retention.value.  Here is how:
> +    //if (id == AnnotationCollector::_class_Retention) {
> 
>> Add parenthesis around expression in next condition:
>> 
>> +  while (--nann >= 0 && index-2 + min_size <= limit) {
> 
> Done:
>   +  while ((--nann) >= 0 && (index-2 + min_size <= limit)) {
> 
>> Instead of passing pointers to classFileParser's new attributes fields (_synthetic_flag, _sourcefile, ...) as arguments add accessors functions which set these fields.
> 
> The pointer passing is following the pattern already present for parsing other constructs.  parse_fields is the clearest example.  The parsed information is returned by reference.  I could do as you suggest, but it would work only for top-level class attributes, so there would still be a mix of styles.  My thought is to make the style more uniform by relying on the return-by-reference pattern.
> 
> But I'll change it if you insist.
> 
>> I think next is typo, should be _in_method check:
>> 
>> +  case vmSymbols::VM_SYMBOL_ENUM_NAME(java_lang_invoke_ForceInline_signature):
>> +    if (_location != _in_class)  break;
>> +    return _method_ForceInline;
>> +  default: break;
>> +  }
> 
> Yes; thanks.
> 
> — John
> _______________________________________________
> mlvm-dev mailing list
> mlvm-dev at openjdk.java.net
> http://mail.openjdk.java.net/mailman/listinfo/mlvm-dev

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/hotspot-compiler-dev/attachments/20120711/cbd9297c/attachment.html