In a few places, the draft spec has the following:
If the class file version number is not 54.1 ...
Should it not be something like:
If the class file version number is lower than 54.1 ...
And this:
Unless the class file version number is 54.1 ...
replace with:
Unless the class file version
Dan,
Thank you for the responses. Summary - we are good with the current JVMS
description of decoupling VCC and DVC initialization and linking
as long as you add vbox to require initialization of the VCC.
> On Jun 13, 2017, at 6:51 PM, Dan Smith wrote:
>
>> On Jun 13, 2017, at 3:26 PM, Karen
> On Jun 13, 2017, at 3:26 PM, Karen Kinnear wrote:
>
> I wanted to follow up specifically on the load/link/init relationships for
> the Value Capable Class (VCC) and the derived Value Class (DVC) to use the
> terms in this JVMS draft. (Note: direct value class is the longer term
> directly de
Dan,
Many thanks for writing this optional JVMS draft so early so we can iron out
issues together.
I wanted to follow up specifically on the load/link/init relationships for the
Value Capable Class (VCC) and the derived Value Class (DVC) to use
the terms in this JVMS draft. (Note: direct value
Please see the following for a set of changes to JVMS to support our value
types prototyping efforts.
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~dlsmith/values.html
The intent is to reference this document in an umbrella JSR as a set of
features that may be optionally implemented by a JVM without any compatib
