On Mon, 25 May 2026 09:03:47 GMT, David Simms <[email protected]> wrote:
>> This is a "*sub-review pull request*" for the first >> [preview](https://openjdk.org/jeps/12) of [JEP 401: Value Classes and >> Objects](https://openjdk.org/jeps/401), specifically >> [JDK-8317279](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8317279): Standard library >> implementation of value classes and objects >> >>> [!NOTE] >>> This pull request and the other sub-review pull requests listed below are >>> based on the "*master pull request*" >>> (https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/pull/31120). It contains the same full set >>> of code changes as the "*master pull request*" to preserve the full >>> implementation context; the language compiler, JVM, and standard library >>> changes are intertwined. This separate pull requests exist only to >>> subdivide the review and related discussion by area. >> >> Other areas for review: >> >> - [JDK-8317277](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8317277): Java language >> implementation of value classes and objects >> - https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/pull/31121 >> - [JDK-8317278](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8317278): JVM >> implementation of value classes and objects >> - https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/pull/31122 >> >> Code changes resulting from the review process should be made in >> [`valhalla/lworld`](https://github.com/openjdk/valhalla/). >> >> `valhalla/lworld` is currently updated from `jdk/master` whenever a weekly >> [`jdk` tag](https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/tags) is created. At that time, >> code changes from `valhalla/lworld` will be propagated to the master pull >> request and to all sub-review pull requests, including this one. >> >> Ultimately, review sign-off will be recorded on the "*master pull request*", >> and this pull request will be closed without integration. >> >> This pull request has a large code surface area and often conflicts with >> `jdk/master` on a daily basis. Refer to >> [`valhalla/lworld`](https://github.com/openjdk/valhalla/) for the latest >> state of the project code, keeping in mind that it may lag several days >> behind `jdk/master`. Both repositories may be needed as references during >> review. >> >> --------- >> - [x] I confirm that I make this contribution in accordance with the >> [OpenJDK Interim AI Policy](https://openjdk.org/legal/ai). > > David Simms has updated the pull request with a new target base due to a > merge or a rebase. The pull request now contains 2732 commits: > > - Merge remote-tracking branch 'valhalla/lworld' into 8317277 > - 8385344: [lworld] ProblemList > tools/javac/platform/CanHandleClassFilesTest.java with --enable-preview > > Reviewed-by: fparain > - 8385301: [lworld] Remove > serviceability/sa/TestJhsdbJstackMixedWithXComp.java from problem list > > Reviewed-by: dsimms > - 8385331: [lworld] adjust ValueComparisonTest.java again to work around > JDK-8370769 > > Reviewed-by: dsimms > - 8385311: [lworld] TypePtr::eq() should use accessor method for _offset > > Reviewed-by: mchevalier > - 8385259: [lworld] Clean up LP64 in x86 code > > Reviewed-by: dlong, thartmann > - Merge > > Merge jdk-27+23 > - 8384924: [lworld] misc cleanups > > Reviewed-by: thartmann > - 8385167: [lworld] C1: minor cleanups > > Reviewed-by: dlong, thartmann > - 8384066: [lworld] TestDeadAllocationRemoval.java is ignored by jtreg > > Reviewed-by: thartmann > - ... and 2722 more: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/compare/86637704...b3b4a2cb test/lib/jdk/test/lib/net/HttpHeaderParser.java line 92: > 90: public HttpHeaderParser(InputStream is) throws IOException, > ProtocolException { > 91: parse(is); > 92: } Would the correct way of getting rid of this `@SuppressWarnings("initialization")` annotation here be to change the constructor to either call `this();` or `super();` before `parse(is);`? I am not saying that it should happen in this PR but I would like to understand what kind of followup work might be needed in the networking area. Thanks! ------------- PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/31123#discussion_r3323186924
