If the spec is updated, i really want to get ride of ACC_STATIC_PHASE and uses ACC_STATIC instead. Renaming public to transitive was the right move but I think we go a little over the top with static.
In the module-info, the Java syntax already uses static, i do not see a lot of value to use a different flag. As a example, we did not introduce a new flag for static methods in an interface even if they do not have the same behavior as static methods in a class. Remi On February 1, 2017 9:22:28 AM GMT+01:00, Alan Bateman <alan.bate...@oracle.com> wrote: >On 30/01/2017 22:15, Remi Forax wrote: > >> Hi all, >> chasing a bug on ASM, i've found that the module implementation in >the JDK uses the wrong values for ACC_TRANSITIVE and ACC_STATIC_PHASE, >> in the spec [1], >> 0x0020 (ACC_TRANSITIVE) >> 0x0040 (ACC_STATIC_PHASE) >> but in the implementation [2], >> public static final int ACC_TRANSITIVE = 0x0010; >> public static final int ACC_STATIC_PHASE = 0x0020; >> >Sigh, we do have a mismatch, I think a consequence of the churn last >year on the design proposals. Note that javac and the run time are in >sync so this doesn't impact anyone except when they start using the >updated ASM to read/write module-info.class. I would like to get the >spec updates that we are accumulating in jake into JDK 9 before JDK 9 >his ZBB and and right time to sort out the requires_flags too. > >-Alan -- Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
