RFR:JDK-8198749 Translation of value constructors in classic constructor notation

[Srikanth]

On Wednesday 11 July 2018 06:38 PM, Maurizio Cimadamore wrote:
> Hi Srikanth,
> very good piece of work. Some comments below:

[...]
>
> - I don't fully get the dance around JCNewClass when you want to 
> create a default value. I think a JCNewClass tree is too heavy for a 
> default value creation. What you need is an AST node with argument 
> expression and a type (or a symbol, if you want). You don't need 
> constructor symbols, I think - I get that this code has probably 
> changed over time from a world with slightly different invariants, but 
> looking at it now feels overly complex.

Agree. This is just a side effect of __MakeDefault piggyacking on 
JCNewClass AST node with the
creationMode field serving as a discriminator - NEW for references and 
DEFAULT_VALUE for value
types.

We don't even need an argument expression - default value creation 
cannot take any parameters.
Again, agree about the irrelevance of constructor symbol and type there 
- It is just an attempt to
preserve internal consistency after having made many moons ago the 
decision to overload the JCNewClass tree.

I will look at simplifying the AST in a follow up ticket - though with 
the canonical constructor syntax, the continued need for __MakeDefault 
would be questionable.
>
>
> - on whether you need a return or not, is the problem that you don't 
> know whether the code is alive or not after the last statement of the 
> constructor has been evaluated? If that's the case, you *could* in 
> principle feed the new method to Flow.aliveAnalyzer, and see whether 
> it completes normally or not. That's the same logic we also use for 
> lambda checking. E.g. you could create a new AliveAnalyzer visitor, 
> run it on the body you have, and then check whether its 'alive' 
> parameter is true or not. That will allow you to generate the body in 
> full, w/o splitting logic between TransValues and Gen (which is of 
> course fine as an interim workaround)

Perfect. Thanks. Will fix.

>
> - shouldn't we add the new factory to the scope of the class? How is 
> even ClassWriter picking it up if it's not in the scope? Ah, I see, 
> you add it into the scope in getValueFactory, and you do it only once 
> because of the init2factory map. I suggest to move the scope entering 
> near to where the factory method is created so that, longer term, we 
> can be guarateed that we won't attempt to add it to the same scope twice.
>
Sounds good, will do.
> - replacing old constructor body with super call is odd. Maybe we 
> should throw, to make sure nobody is calling that?

I invested some good bit of time in the throw - but discarded it after 
learning that the verifier rejects the class file if there ever is a new 
opcode that targets a value <init>
>
> - don't you need also to override visitApply in case the constructor 
> is calling  an instance method on the value being constructed?
There is some differing opinions on this - Brian says reject all uses of 
this (implicit or explicit) other than chained ctor calls, field 
read/writes.

See point 3 in the Objectives section of 
https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8198749.

John is of the opinion that once all fields are DA, instance method 
calls are OK.

I am waiting for the dust to settle on this, In any case I will take 
this up as part of https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8205910

>
> * tests - mayeb for later, and depending on whether we support inner 
> values (seems to, looking at InnerValueNew) - one kind of super 
> constructor call that might get you in trouble is the qualified super 
> constructor call - e.g., with regular ordinary classes you can have this:
>
> class A {
>
>     class Inner { }
> }
>
>
> class B extends A.Inner {
>
>        B(A encl) {
>            enc.super();
>        }
> }
>
>
> It would be interesting to verify at some point that this kind of 
> idiom works with your value desugaring too.
>
Will check!

My plan is to fix a bunch of feedback items before push and raise a 
follow up ticket for others.

Thanks so much Maurizio,
Have a restful break!
Srikanth
> That's all I can think of.
>
> Cheers
> Maurizio
>
>
>
> On 11/07/18 11:56, Srikanth wrote:
>>
>> Hi Maurizio,
>>
>> Please review the following patch that implements the changes 
>> required for
>> https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8198749 ([lworld] 
>> Translation of value constructors in classic constructor notation)
>>
>> Webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~sadayapalam/JDK-8198749/webrev.00/
>>
>> Part of the work in supporting value construction in the classic 
>> constructor notation
>> will happen independently on behalf of 
>> https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8205910(diagnose use of 
>> 'this' with DU fields (for VTs and VBCs)).
>>
>> Normally I would have requested the review after a fair bit more of 
>> testing and self-review, but given your proposed long absence, I am 
>> requesting the review now. However, I am happy to note that the code 
>> is in pretty decent shape for another person to study (known issues 
>> at the bottom)
>>
>> I will continue with the testing and self review in parallel.
>>
>> If time is an issue, you can limit the review to the following source 
>> files:
>>
>>     Gen.java
>>     TransValues.java
>>     LambdaToMethod.java
>>
>> and these test files: (these give an idea of what works already and 
>> allows you to experiment by tweaking)
>>
>> test/langtools/tools/javac/valhalla/lworld-values/InnerValueNew.java
>> test/langtools/tools/javac/valhalla/lworld-values/LocalValueNew.java
>> test/langtools/tools/javac/valhalla/lworld-values/QualifiedThisTest.java
>> test/langtools/tools/javac/valhalla/lworld-values/ValueConstructorRef.java 
>>
>> test/langtools/tools/javac/valhalla/lworld-values/ValueNewReadWrite.java
>>
>> Known issues:
>>
>> (1) make.at() calls may not be updated consistently/uniformly.
>> (2) I need to double check that some subtree translations are not 
>> skipped inadvertently.
>> (3) Some of the other *older* modified tests need rewriting - they 
>> compare javap output which is flaky due to constant pool offsets 
>> changing anytime there is a change in code generation scheme.
>> (4) Some code duplication can be avoided by creating utility routines.
>>
>> langtools tests are green (except for one non-material failure).
>>
>> Thanks!
>> Srikanth
>