hg: valhalla/valhalla: [lworld] Withdraw support for the __Flattenable and __NotFlattened field modifiers.

[Srikanth]

I am working on it, will push soon.

Srikanth

On Tuesday 26 June 2018 09:17 PM, Karen Kinnear wrote:
> Srikanth, Tobias,
>
> Yes please to push this patch to move these modifiers under the experimental flag. this is a much better approach.
>
> LW1 is a really tight deadline right now and we don’t want to cause extra work.
> My apologies for missing the implications.
>
> thank you both,
> Karen
>
>> On Jun 26, 2018, at 7:23 AM, Srikanth <srikanth.adayapalam at oracle.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> The attached patch would cause the flattenability modifiers to be accepted with their erstwhile syntax and semantics when javac is invoked with -XDallowFlattenabilityModifiers
>>
>> I'll wait to hear from Karen and push/discard accordingly.
>>
>> (I am likely away Thursday/Friday, I will be available on Wednesday. Posting a patch here, so if it is required in my absence it can be availed. It passes all langtools tests)
>>
>> Thanks!
>> Srikanth
>>
>> On Tuesday 26 June 2018 03:38 PM, Srikanth wrote:
>>>
>>> On Tuesday 26 June 2018 03:32 PM, Tobias Hartmann wrote:
>>>> Hi Srikanth,
>>>>
>>>> On 26.06.2018 11:37, Srikanth wrote:
>>>>> I did have an express go from Karen to "nuke" these source level modifiers before proceeding. But in
>>>>> light of what you say, I'll take a look and see what is involved in pushing these under an option
>>>>> instead.
>>>> Thanks for looking into it but we should probably wait for Karen to comment on that. I guess I
>>>> missed the discussion/decision of fully removing these modifiers (I thought we just don't want to
>>>> support them for LW1).
>>> Sounds good to me. I'll keep a patch ready in any case and after hearing from Karen decide to push or discard.
>>>
>>> I believe the consensus in the VM is to move away fromACC_FLATTENABLE on fields to using the ValueTypes attribute.
>>>
>>> Your concern below about the code rot is valid.
>>>
>>> Srikanth
>>>>> Even with that many of the tests would need "massaging" but I guess it won't shut you out from
>>>>> retaining the support for non-flattened value type fields.
>>>> Yes, I'm fine with modifying the tests, I'm just concerned that without testing the implementation
>>>> of non-flattenable fields in the JVM, the code will start to rot very soon.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Tobias
>> <flat.txt>