Hi Sergey,
I've had a look and I don't think this issue is relevant to JDK-8171335.
The problem seems to occur when you have a "hidden" enclosing context
for the type, and that doesn't change with JDK-8171335.
David
On 9/12/2018 6:04 am, Sergey wrote:
Hi David,
Thanks for pointing that out!
>We need to see how this example work in that case.
I guess anyone involved could have straight away two
test cases: one from the bug itself and another from the
observation above.
In any case. looking forward for that being fixed. I would
also be happy to be able to help with anything if needed.
Thanks and regards,
Sergei
On Sat, 8 Dec 2018 at 12:03, David Holmes <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
Hi Sergey,
Just FYI we're in the process of moving away from using anonymous
classes for lambda's to using an extended Lookup.defineClass API - see:
https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8171335
this is being done under Project Valhalla, with current work in the
nestmates branch.
We need to see how this example work in that case.
Cheers,
David
On 8/12/2018 9:53 am, Sergey wrote:
> Hi everyone,
>
> Recently I've stumbled upon this bug
> https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8213465
> which is named the same way as in the header of an email. I've done a
> little bit of
> investigation and keen to fix it. Though I'm afraid that most
likely fix
> wouldn't be just
> a one-liner. Thus I want to ask for a little bit of a guidance
and make
> sure, that I do not cross
> anyone else. With that being said, if ticket isn't in progress
and no one
> minds I want to make
> an attempt on it.
>
> Thanks and regards,
> Sergei
>
