RFR (S) 8024599: JSR 292 direct method handles need to respect initialization rules for static members

[John Rose]

Push-button webrev generator to the rescue:
  http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~jrose/8024599/webrev.01

— John

On Oct 2, 2013, at 11:23 AM, Christian Thalinger <christian.thalinger at oracle.com> wrote:

> Since there is no new webrev I assume you incorporated all the stuff below.  If that's the case then it looks good.
> 
> On Sep 20, 2013, at 6:18 PM, John Rose <john.r.rose at oracle.com> wrote:
> 
>> On Sep 20, 2013, at 8:29 AM, Vladimir Ivanov <vladimir.x.ivanov at oracle.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> John,
>>> 
>>> I don't see much value in documenting buggy behavior of early JDK7 in JDK8 code. So, I would remove it.
>> 
>> OK.  I think I had it in mainly to make sure the unit tests did something interesting.
> 
>> 
>>> Regarding the test:
>>> 31  * @run main/othervm/timeout=3600
>>> - why do you have timeout set to 1h?
>> 
>> Copy-and-paste from some other test.  Removed.
>> 
>>> I like the idea how you count events.
>>> 
>>> As a suggestion for enhancement - maybe it's more reliable to check the "type" of event as well? To ensure that particular class was initialized.
>> 
>> Good idea.  But since each unique init event is stored in a separate variable, it's easy to check this without explicit event types.  I did the following, for each of the six test cases:
>> 
>> @@ -150,9 +150,11 @@
>>    }
>> 
>>    private static int runFoo() throws Throwable {
>> +        assertEquals(Init1Tick, 0);  // Init1 not initialized yet
>>        int t1 = tick("runFoo");
>>        int t2 = (int) INDY_foo().invokeExact();
>>        int t3 = tick("runFoo done");
>> +        assertEquals(Init1Tick, t2);  // when Init1 was initialized
>>        assertEquals(t1+2, t3);  // exactly two ticks in between
>>        assertEquals(t1+1, t2);  // init happened inside
>>        return t2;
> 
>> 
>> 
>> — John
>> 
>>> Best regards,
>>> Vladimir Ivanov
>>> 
>>> On 9/20/13 1:38 AM, John Rose wrote:
>>>> On Sep 12, 2013, at 7:24 PM, John Rose <john.r.rose at oracle.com
>>>> <mailto:john.r.rose at oracle.com>> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> Please review this change for a change to the JSR 292 implementation:
>>>>> 
>>>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~jrose/8024599/webrev.00/
>>>>> 
>>>>> Summary: Align MH semantic with bytecode behavior of constructor and
>>>>> static member accesses, regarding <clinit> invocation.
>>>>> 
>>>>> The change is to javadoc and unit tests, documenting and testing some
>>>>> corner cases of JSR 292 APIs.
>>>> 
>>>> I have a reviewer (Alex Buckley) for the documentation changes, but I
>>>> would also like a quick code review for the unit test.
>>>> 
>>>> Also, there is a code insertion (predicated on a "false" symbolic
>>>> constant) which serves to document the buggy JDK 7 behavior.  I'm not
>>>> particularly attached to it, so I'm open to either a yea or nay on
>>>> keeping it.  Leaning nay at the moment.
>>>> 
>>>> — John
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> mlvm-dev mailing list
>>>> mlvm-dev at openjdk.java.net
>>>> http://mail.openjdk.java.net/mailman/listinfo/mlvm-dev
>>>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> mlvm-dev mailing list
>> mlvm-dev at openjdk.java.net
>> http://mail.openjdk.java.net/mailman/listinfo/mlvm-dev
> 
> _______________________________________________
> mlvm-dev mailing list
> mlvm-dev at openjdk.java.net
> http://mail.openjdk.java.net/mailman/listinfo/mlvm-dev