On Sep 18, 2013, at 5:05 PM, Christian Thalinger 
<christian.thalin...@oracle.com> wrote:

> src/share/classes/java/lang/invoke/MethodHandles.java:
> 
> +     * methods as if they were normal methods, but the JVM verifier rejects 
> them.
> 
> I think you should say "JVM byte code verifier" here.

Done.  s/byte code/bytecode/.

> 
> +         * <em>(Note:  JVM internal methods named {@code <init>} not visible 
> to this API,
> +         * even though the {@code invokespecial} instruction can refer to 
> them
> +         * in special circumstances.  Use {@link #findConstructor 
> findConstructor}
> 
> Not exactly sure but should this read "are not visible"?

Yes.

> 
>         MemberName resolveOrFail(byte refKind, Class<?> refc, String name, 
> MethodType type) throws NoSuchMethodException, IllegalAccessException {
> +            type.getClass();  // NPE
>             checkSymbolicClass(refc);  // do this before attempting to resolve
> -            name.getClass(); type.getClass();  // NPE
> +            checkMethodName(refKind, name);
> 
> Could you add a comment here saying that checkMethodName does an implicit 
> null pointer check on name?  Maybe a comment for checkMethodName too.

Done.

> 
> What was the problem with the null pointer exceptions?  Is it okay that we 
> might throw another exception before null checking name?

Foo.  The reordering of those null checks seems to be a needless change that 
crept in.  I'm going to keep them the way they are.

See updated webrev:
  http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~jrose/8001108/webrev.01/

— John

> On Sep 12, 2013, at 6:47 PM, John Rose <john.r.r...@oracle.com> wrote:
> 
>> Please review this change for a change to the JSR 292 implementation:
>> 
>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~jrose/8001108/webrev.00
>> 
>> Summary: add an explicit check for leading "<", upgrade the unit tests
>> 
>> The change is mostly to javadoc and unit tests, documenting and testing some 
>> corner cases of JSR 292 APIs.
>> 
>> In the RI, there is an explicit error check.
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> — John
>> 
>> P.S. Since this is a change which oriented toward JSR 292 functionality, the 
>> review request is to mlvm-dev and core-libs-dev.
>> Changes which are oriented toward performance will go to mlvm-dev and 
>> hotspot-compiler-dev.
>> _______________________________________________
>> mlvm-dev mailing list
>> mlvm-dev@openjdk.java.net
>> http://mail.openjdk.java.net/mailman/listinfo/mlvm-dev
> 
> _______________________________________________
> mlvm-dev mailing list
> mlvm-dev@openjdk.java.net
> http://mail.openjdk.java.net/mailman/listinfo/mlvm-dev

_______________________________________________
mlvm-dev mailing list
mlvm-dev@openjdk.java.net
http://mail.openjdk.java.net/mailman/listinfo/mlvm-dev

Reply via email to