On Wed, 6 Dec 2023 15:32:54 GMT, Per Minborg <[email protected]> wrote:
>> This PR proposes to change the exception type for exceptions thrown for
>> certain methods with a parameter of type `MemorySegment` when it is
>> `MemorySegment::isReadOnly`. Previously an `UnsupportedOperationException`
>> was specified but in some cases, in reality, an `IllegalArgumentException`
>> was thrown.
>>
>> The principle used in this PR is that operations acting on an MS where the
>> MS is `this` should throw an `UnsupportedOperationException` whereas in
>> cases where the MS is a *parameter* an `IllegalArgumentException` should be
>> thrown.
>>
>> It should be noted that this PR retains the previous behavior for MS
>> VarHandle access (even though the MS is a parameter to the accessor methods,
>> the first parameter can be said to represent `this`).
>
> Per Minborg has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional
> commit since the last revision:
>
> Update throws docs fror SegmentAllocator
src/java.base/share/classes/java/lang/foreign/SegmentAllocator.java line 95:
> 93: * @param str the Java string to be converted into a C string
> 94: * @return a new native segment containing the converted C string
> 95: * @throws IllegalArgumentException if the allocated segment is
I don't think the changes here are useful. What does it mean for an allocated
segment to be read-only? I think all these conditions are tied to
`prefixAllocator` blindly accepting read-only segments, which should NOT be the
case. I suggest to revert all the chnages here and document (and throw) a new
exception for when a prefix allocator is created from a read-only segment.
src/java.base/share/classes/jdk/internal/foreign/AbstractMemorySegmentImpl.java
line 367:
> 365:
> 366: @ForceInline
> 367: public void checkAccess(long offset, long length, AccessConstraint
> access) {
These changes should be reverted, I don't think we use the UOE mode anymore.
Just revert the impl to what it was before (also true for VarHandle templates).
-------------
PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/16993#discussion_r1417525637
PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/16993#discussion_r1417528416
