[lworld] RFR: 8367323: [lworld] javac is rejecting valid code after fix for JDK-8359370

[Maurizio Cimadamore]

On Fri, 12 Sep 2025 12:18:00 GMT, Maurizio Cimadamore <mcimadamore at openjdk.org> wrote:

>> Recent fix for [JDK-8359370](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8359370) introduced a minor bug. This code should be accepted by javac:
>> 
>> class SuperClass<T> {
>>     public SuperClass(Object o) {}
>> }
>> 
>> class Sub<T> extends SuperClass<T> {
>>     public Sub() {
>>         super(new Object() {
>>             void foo() {
>>                 getClass();
>>             }
>>         });
>>     }
>> }
>> 
>> 
>> but it is currently rejected as the `getClass` invocation is considered to be an invocation of an instance method of class `Sub`
>
> src/jdk.compiler/share/classes/com/sun/tools/javac/comp/Attr.java line 1478:
> 
>> 1476:                     return TreeInfo.isExplicitThisReference(types, (ClassType)env.enclClass.type, fa.selected);
>> 1477:                 }
>> 1478:                 if (currentClassSym != env.enclClass.sym) {
> 
> stylistic (and optional). In a way, if we added that as part of an `else if` it would make it clear that we're in an "implicit" qualifier case (e.g. simple name). Also, maybe adding a one line comment about why we're doing the extra check might be helpful for future reference.

Question: can we ever get here for a static symbol? I think for statics we should never run `analyzeSymbol` right? I'm not sure: `analyzeSymbol` seems called regardless of static-ness. Then it has two checks inside, one for writes and another for reads. The check for reads excludes `static` symbols, but the check for writes doesn't? I think we should maybe write some tests where we assign to a static field from a prologue :-)

-------------

PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/valhalla/pull/1567#discussion_r2344077216