RFR 8233272 : The Class.forName specification should be updated to match the long-standing implementation with respect to class linking

[David Holmes]

On 15/11/2019 10:33 am, Brent Christian wrote:
> On 11/14/19 4:12 PM, David Holmes wrote:
>> On 15/11/2019 9:58 am, Brent Christian wrote:
>>>
>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~bchristi/8233272/webrev-03/
>>
>> Test is fine. Just one note/clarification:
>>
>>   63         // Loading (but not linking) Container will succeed.
>>
>> Container was already loaded as part of the failing forName call, so 
>> this second forName will just return it.
> 
> Hmm.  I could use a different classloader instance for the second 
> Class.forName() call.

If you really want to test both positive and negative cases from a clean 
slate then I would suggest modifying the test slightly and using two 
@run commands - one to try to initialize and one to not.

Cheers,
David

> (The test does fail as expected using a build with 8212117 but without 
> 8233091.)
> 
> -Brent