webrev for type-annotations, repeating type-annotations test

[Steve Sides]

I posted a second webrev, 
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~ssides/8005085/webrev.02/
with a webrevComment.txt file and removed the statics. :)

-steve

On 1/9/2013 12:32 PM, Alex Buckley wrote:
> Hi Steve,
>
> Thanks for publishing this webrev. (And congrats on becoming an Author 
> in this project!)
>
> CombinationsTargetTest is pretty complicated. Could you please give a 
> description and examples of the combinations it generates?
>
> DeadCode, NewTypeArguments, TypeCasts, and Wildcards all use static 
> fields in their superclass (ClassfileTestHelper) to communicate 
> expected results to ClassfileTestHelper.countAnnotations(). Is it 
> necessary to use static fields for this purpose?
>
> 8005681 is interesting. You're saying that "new @Foo @Foo @Bar @Bar 
> C()" causes all four annotations to be dropped? Werner cannot access 
> JBS, so it would be helpful if you could send test cases to this list.
>
> Alex
>
> On 1/8/2013 3:45 PM, Steve Sides wrote:
>> This test supercedes the test in the previous review request (which was
>> via mail).
>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~ssides/8005085/
>>
>> In writing a test for repeating type annotations I found it could cover
>> several scenarios in one test, so this coverage
>> mixed target types on type usages and type parameters as well as
>> repeating type annotations in those usages.
>>
>> Due to http://bugs.sun.com/bugdatabase/view_bug.do?bug_id=8005681 a few
>> scenarios are commented out.
>> In addition to any other changes or suggestions, we may want for that to
>> be fixed so the whole test can be considered.
>>
>> This also include the previous refactoring of the classfile tests into a
>> helper, ClassfileTestHelper.java.
>> This makes the tests much simpler looking and easier to add new tests.
>>
>> I'd appreciate any comments or suggestions.
>>
>> -steve