Declaration annotations in type-annotation-only positions

[Jan Lahoda]

Hi,

Webrev updated:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~jlahoda/8028699/webrev.01/

I also ran the patch through a set of tests I usually run to test 
patches, ended up good.

Jan

On 11/21/2013 10:39 PM, Werner Dietl wrote:
> 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.
>>>
>>
>
>
>