Declaration annotations in type-annotation-only positions

[Werner Dietl]

Hi Jan,

thanks for creating the bug and webrev!
Thanks for noticing that tree.def.mods can be assumed non-null. I was
overly cautious. I pushed that change to type-annotations.

cu, WMD.

On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 9:15 AM, Jan Lahoda <jan.lahoda at oracle.com> wrote:
> Werner,
>
> Thanks for the bug report, was filled as:
> https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8028699
>
> Also thanks for the fix. I've prepared a webrev with the changes for
> convenience (the only intentional change compared to the changesets below
> was changing the bug number in the test):
> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~jlahoda/8028699/webrev.00/
>
> I would like to ask about the "tree.def.mods != null" check. Is this check
> needed? Looking at other places, it seems that if tree.def != null then
> tree.def.mods cannot be null.
>
> Thanks,
>     Jan
>
>
> On 11/21/2013 12:55 AM, Werner Dietl wrote:
>>
>> Dear type annotation developers,
>>
>> I have some changes in the type-annotations repository that should be
>> propagated to TL.
>> It's three changesets that should be merged into one:
>>
>>
>> http://hg.openjdk.java.net/type-annotations/type-annotations/langtools/rev/098327afad8d
>>
>> http://hg.openjdk.java.net/type-annotations/type-annotations/langtools/rev/9cb6d18db886
>>
>> http://hg.openjdk.java.net/type-annotations/type-annotations/langtools/rev/2da59ead687f
>>
>> These changes prevent a NullPointerException in a simple test case and
>> then refactor how the checks are implemented.
>>
>> All comments welcome!
>> cu, WMD.
>>
>



-- 
http://www.google.com/profiles/wdietl