Hi Martin, Looks good. I also think the code is easier to read now.
Thanks for switching back to a version with racy but correct initialization. As Peter wrote, there are many cases where we don’t guarantee == on Type instances. I can see why that would be desirable, but that is a separate discussion (and also "very hard" to accomplish given todays design). Thanks for taking fixing this. cheers /Joel > On 9 dec 2014, at 17:49, Martin Buchholz <marti...@google.com> wrote: > > Oops sorry - classic mistake of forgetting to hg qrefresh before publishing. > > On Tue, Dec 9, 2014 at 3:23 AM, Paul Sandoz <paul.san...@oracle.com> wrote: >> On Dec 8, 2014, at 11:47 PM, Martin Buchholz <marti...@google.com> wrote: >>> Webrev updated. >> >> Not quite sure how the webrev was updated: >> >> >> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~martin/webrevs/openjdk9/core-reflection-more-safety/ >> >> But the patch file >> >> >> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~martin/webrevs/openjdk9/core-reflection-more-safety/core-reflection-more-safety.patch >> >> seems out of sync with the contents for each diff e.g: >> >> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~martin/webrevs/openjdk9/core-reflection-more-safety/src/java.base/share/classes/sun/reflect/annotation/AnnotationInvocationHandler.java.sdiff.html >> >> Do you observe the same? >> >> >>> Field updaters are gone. I intend to commit soon. >>> >> >> I went through the diffs individually and it seems fine but i don't have >> 100% confidence that the webrev has not been unintentionally mangled. >> >> Paul.
