On Wed, 13 Apr 2022 21:12:40 GMT, ExE Boss <d...@openjdk.java.net> wrote:
>> Joe Darcy has updated the pull request with a new target base due to a merge >> or a rebase. The incremental webrev excludes the unrelated changes brought >> in by the merge/rebase. The pull request contains 26 additional commits >> since the last revision: >> >> - Respond to review feedback. >> - Merge branch 'master' into JDK-8266670 >> - Make workding changes suggested in review feedback. >> - Merge branch 'master' into JDK-8266670 >> - Typo fix; add implSpec to Executable. >> - Appease jcheck. >> - Fix some bugs found by inspection, docs cleanup. >> - Merge branch 'master' into JDK-8266670 >> - Initial support for accessFlags methods >> - Add mask to access flag functionality. >> - ... and 16 more: >> https://git.openjdk.java.net/jdk/compare/afd02683...14980605 > > src/java.base/share/classes/java/lang/module/ModuleDescriptor.java line 167: > >> 165: * but is optional in the dynamic phase, during execution. >> 166: */ >> 167: STATIC(AccessFlag.STATIC.mask()), > > This is actually `AccessFlag.STATIC_PHASE` (`0x0040`), and not > `AccessFlag.STATIC` (`0x0008`): > Suggestion: > > STATIC(AccessFlag.STATIC_PHASE.mask()), > In the current hodgepodge AccessFlag, we have STATIC and STATIC_PHASE, and > the incorrect ModuleDescriptor.accessFlags().contains(AccessFlag.STATIC) call > is much more subtle, especially to new users of this class. Arguably, this > misuse would be way worse than that in the distinct enum case. Oops, didn't know this already happened. Good spot right there. ------------- PR: https://git.openjdk.java.net/jdk/pull/7445
