Future of 'type-annotations/type-annotations' forest

[Werner Dietl]

>> In type-annotations, I made sure that the BasicAnnoTest at:
>> test/tools/javac/processing/model/type/BasicAnnoTests.java
>> compiles correctly.
>> However, the generics/arrays/exceptions test cases at the end do not work yet.
>> Is this something you are aware of? I thought one reason for your
>> refactorings was exactly to make these tests work.
>
> It seems that DPrinter has gotten out of date, due to a few fixes that
> have changed the internal data structures.  Among these are a fix that
> refactors the top-level nodes, and my fix that eliminates AnnotatedType.
>
> If you've fixed all (or even some) of these issues, I'll gladly
> integrate your changes.

The type-annotations repo contains a fixed DPrinter and I've kept it
up-to-date through all recent refactorings.

I haven't fixed the BasicAnnoTests, as my understanding was that
fixing these tests is one reason for your refactorings.


>> Another difference that would make compatibility between jdk8 and jkd9
>> easier is if field "exception_index" remained public to allow direct
>> access.
>
> Unfortunately, I think that's less feasible.  The exception_index field
> currently gets used to store both exception indexes, as well as a
> combination of catch info and source positions.  Because the formatting
> for this is nontrivial, and we have plans to eliminate it in the future,
> exception_index was made private and accessible through getters and setters.
>
> I would, however, be willing to add an updateExceptionIndex, which would
> allow you to change the index after it has already been set.

I have two use cases: create a new TAP from an existing TAP and
comparing two TAPs for equality.
For either one, I don't care what the underlying interpretation of the
ints is, I just need to copy/compare them.

One of our goals is to keep the Checker Framework running with the
standard Java 8 compiler. I already perform quite a few TAP things
reflectively to achieve this. I can do the same with the
exception_index field, its just yet another complication that gets
introduced.


>> A few tests in jdk9 are disabled, even though they pass in type-annotations.
>> The other differences between jdk9 and type-annotations are small
>> fixes to javadoc, performance, and imports.
>> See my message from May 8 for details:
>> http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/type-annotations-dev/2014-May/001722.html
>
> More tests are being re-enabled in the cleanup patch.  I am currently
> looking into the javadoc tests as well.  As for the other fixes, I think
> I would like to get the two big patches (the rearchitecting patch and
> the cleanup patch) integrated, then look at them one-by-one.

Ok, please do let me know if I can help.
I would like to get all useful changes from type-annotations into jdk9
so that we can ideally close type-annotations in a state that exactly
matches jdk9.

Thanks,
cu, WMD.

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