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

[John Rose]

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
>>