On Thu, 31 Jul 2025 19:04:34 GMT, Chen Liang <li...@openjdk.org> wrote:
>> Unsafe throws IAE for misusing static vs instance fields, and it's revealed >> that AtomicXxxFieldUpdaters are using this mechanism to reject static >> fields. This is not a good practice, but we can at least document this so we >> don't accidentally introduce problems. > > Chen Liang has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional > commit since the last revision: > > Less specific reasons for IAE I don't possess sufficient experience on `Unsafe` et al., though given there are no behavioral changes, I presume it should all be fine. I've verified the following: * `Unsafe` doc improvements * `U::objectFieldOffset(Class,String)` throws descriptive `IE` * `U::objectFieldOffset1` is renamed to more descriptive `knownObjectFieldOffset0` * `Atomic*FieldUpdater` checks and their TCK counterparts (This could have actually been a separate PR, but I see that the component owners gave consent.) * `AddressComputationContractTest` I guess you will have a follow-up JBS ticket (along with a PR? 😇) for @minborg's [suggestion on consolidating checks in `Atomic*FieldUpdater` classes](https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/pull/25945/files#r2189548142). For instance, I see `AIFU.AIFUImpl::isAncestor` is not even used. test/jdk/jdk/internal/misc/Unsafe/AddressComputationContractTest.java line 64: > 62: > 63: @Test > 64: void fastObjectFieldOffset() { Nit: You may want to match the corresponding impl. method name, as you did in other test methods: Suggestion: void knownObjectFieldOffset() { ------------- Marked as reviewed by vyazici (Committer). PR Review: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/25945#pullrequestreview-3078367564 PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/25945#discussion_r2247407686
