[Nestmates] RFR 8187567: [Nestmates] Enable nestmate changes in javac by default

[David Holmes]

On 21/09/2017 8:31 PM, Maurizio Cimadamore wrote:
> Thanks David.
> 
> I've approved the three reviews I've seen related to test disabling - 
> but I realize you have already pushed them. That's ok.

Thanks Maurizio!

David

> Thanks for filing the test bugs to keep track for follow up activity.
> 
> Maurizio
> 
> 
> 
> On 21/09/17 05:29, David Holmes wrote:
>> I'm preparing to push these changes. I've now performed the following 
>> test runs:
>> - hotspot
>>    - runtime
>>    - tier_1
>>    - tier_2_runtime
>>    - tier_2_runtime_platform_agnostic
>>    - tier3_runtime
>> - jdk
>>    - tier1
>>    - tier2
>>    - tier3
>>
>> I've created four bugs in relation to tests that need modification:
>>
>> JDK-8187698 [Nestmates][Testbug] Test 
>> java/lang/invoke/AccessControlTest.java needs updating for nestmates
>>
>> JDK-8187655 [Nestmates][Testbug] 
>> jdk.lambda.separate.ClassToInterfaceConverter needs updating for 
>> changed invocation rules
>>
>> JDK-8187645 [Nestmates] Update Pack200 and tests, to recognize and 
>> process new Nestmate attributes
>>
>> JDK-8187607 [Testbug] Atomic*FieldUpdaterTest.checkPrivateAccess uses 
>> nested classes
>>
>> and four corresponding sub-tasks (sent out for review here) to either 
>> add the tests to the ProblemList.txt file, or else disable specific 
>> failing subtests.
>>
>> I plan to push all these together as the final set of nestmate changes 
>> before we transition to the new consolidated repo layout.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> David
>>
>> On 15/09/2017 7:02 PM, David Holmes wrote:
>>> On 15/09/2017 6:15 PM, Maurizio Cimadamore wrote:
>>>> Looks great.
>>>
>>> Thanks for taking a look Maurizio!
>>>
>>>> The only thing we might need (not now, maybe later) is a 'reverse' 
>>>> javac flag that forces generation of accessor and/or invokevirtual 
>>>> on private in case you want to generate classfile with latest 
>>>> version number but with old properties.
>>>
>>> Yes. If we need it I'll add it. It is a pity the -XDxxx can't be more 
>>> like the hotspot -XX:+xxx and -XX:-xxx flags to allow for 
>>> enable/disable.
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> David
>>>
>>>> Cheers
>>>> Maurizio
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 15/09/17 08:12, David Holmes wrote:
>>>>> bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8187567
>>>>> webrev**: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~dholmes/8187567/
>>>>>
>>>>> ** 
>>>>> test/runtime/Nestmates/privateConstructors/TestInvokeSpecial.java 
>>>>> contains additional changes for 8187536. They will be checked in 
>>>>> separately.
>>>>>
>>>>> While nestmates will ultimately be associated with a future 
>>>>> source/target version of the JDK and an updated classfile version 
>>>>> (see JDK-8187302) we want to be able to enable them by default 
>>>>> as-if executing in that future release.
>>>>>
>>>>> The primary changes are confined to javac and are very 
>>>>> straight-forward:
>>>>> - generate the nestmate attributes in the classfile
>>>>> - use virtual invocation bytecodes for private method invocations
>>>>> - don't generate private accessors
>>>>>
>>>>> With this change in place we can update the hotspot nestmate tests 
>>>>> to not provide explicit "@compile" directives. We also add a test 
>>>>> to verify that invokeinterface is rejected for private interface 
>>>>> methods in pre-nestmate classfile versions (v52 works fine for this).
>>>>>
>>>>> We can now build the JDK with the new nestmate features enabled, 
>>>>> and run tests without needing to provide additional javac options.
>>>>>
>>>>> I also added a missing testcase in 
>>>>> test/runtime/Nestmates/privateMethods/TestInvoke.java (just to 
>>>>> ensure there's no unexpected difference with this$0 usage).
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>> David
>>>>
>