RFR (S) : 8004967 - Default method cause java.lang.VerifyError: Illegal use of nonvirtual function call

[David Holmes]

The webrev for this seems to have vanished.

But I would expect to only see a relaxation of the pre-8 rules to 
accommodate default methods in 8. (The main one being interface method 
=> abstract)

David

On 4/01/2013 1:52 AM, Karen Kinnear wrote:
> Bharadwaj,
>
> Thank you for sending this for review and for the fixes.
>
> A small note:
> While I agree that the changes in the checking for the interface method modifiers matches the specification,
> there are changes which are actually more restrictive than they used to be, so you want to back them out:
>
> 1. For<  jdk8 classfile, if is_protected or is_private is set - we used to ignore it. I'm sure javac enforces
> that you can't have is_public as well as either is_protected or is_private, however for customers who
> generate their own classfiles or for other static compilers, we don't want to throw a verifier error now
> for classfiles that have worked in the past.
>
> 2. Same with is_bridge, is_varargs and is_synthetic - you don't want to check those for<  1.5
>
> Looks like we want some additional test cases for those for older classfile versions, as well
> as test cases for classfile version 52 and is_synchronized and is_strict.
>
> Please also run the vm.quick.testlist tests and check if there are any other vmsqe tests that
> are verifier/classfile parser specific.
>
> thanks,
> Karen
>
> On Jan 2, 2013, at 10:54 AM, Bharadwaj Yadavalli wrote:
>
>> Updated the webrev at http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~bharadwaj/8004967/hotspot/webrev/.
>>
>> Please review the changes.
>>
>> I re-ran JCK tests and runThese. No new failures.
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Bharadwaj
>>
>> On 12/27/2012 12:49 PM, Vladimir Kozlov wrote:
>>> Bharadwaj,
>>>
>>> I would check for<  jdk8 instead of !>=, it is more clear :
>>>
>>> +       if (! (_major_version>= JAVA_8_VERSION)) {
>>>
>>> Next should be one line "} else {":
>>>
>>> +     }
>>> +     else {
>>>
>>> I would move the legality table comment inside "if (is_interface)". Why is_public and is_abstract in your table are illegal before jdk5? The conditions check the opposite.
>>>
>>> Should you also check for (is_protected) for versions before jdk8? It may be not defined for those versions but for condition completeness we should check. Also I don't see checks for is_bridge, is_varargs, is_synthetic. And what about pre jdk5? I would split>=jdk5 and pre versions to follow the table:
>>>
>>> if (major_gte_8) {
>>>   ...
>>> } else if (major_gte_15) {
>>>   ...
>>> } else {
>>>   ...
>>> }
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Vladimir
>>>
>>> On 12/24/12 7:44 AM, Bharadwaj Yadavalli wrote:
>>>> I updated legality verification of default methods of a Java 8
>>>> interfaces. This update
>>>> fixes JDK-8004967 and three other failures in Lambda's test-ng tests.
>>>>
>>>> I also cleaned up the legality verification of interface methods of
>>>> pre-Java 8 interface
>>>> methods. I refactored the code by separating the checks depending on the
>>>> version
>>>> being pre-Java 8 or Java 8 and later.
>>>>
>>>> Please review the changes at
>>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~bharadwaj/8004967/hotspot/webrev/
>>>>
>>>> Ran api, lang and vm JCK tests; no new failures.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>>
>>>> Bharadwaj
>>>>
>