Re: [jdk17] RFR: 8269409: Post JEP 411 refactoring: core-libs with maximum covering > 10K [v2]

2021-06-26 Thread Weijun Wang
On Sat, 26 Jun 2021 16:53:30 GMT, Alan Bateman wrote: >> Weijun Wang has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional >> commit since the last revision: >> >> one more > > src/jdk.attach/share/classes/sun/tools/attach/HotSpotVirtualMachine.java line > 53: > >> 51: private

[jdk17] Integrated: JDK-8266269: Lookup::accessClass fails with IAE when accessing an arrayClass with a protected inner class as component class

2021-06-26 Thread Mandy Chung
On Thu, 24 Jun 2021 18:42:23 GMT, Mandy Chung wrote: > `Lookup::accessClass` should determine the accessibility of the element type. > An array class is accessible if and only if its element type is accessible. > > This also fixes a spec bug to document `@throws NullPointerException` if the

Re: [jdk17] RFR: JDK-8266269: Lookup::accessClass fails with IAE when accessing an arrayClass with a protected inner class as component class [v2]

2021-06-26 Thread Mandy Chung
On Fri, 25 Jun 2021 18:46:30 GMT, Mandy Chung wrote: >> `Lookup::accessClass` should determine the accessibility of the element >> type. An array class is accessible if and only if its element type is >> accessible. >> >> This also fixes a spec bug to document `@throws NullPointerException`

Re: [jdk17] RFR: JDK-8266269: Lookup::accessClass fails with IAE when accessing an arrayClass with a protected inner class as component class [v2]

2021-06-26 Thread Alan Bateman
On Fri, 25 Jun 2021 18:46:30 GMT, Mandy Chung wrote: >> `Lookup::accessClass` should determine the accessibility of the element >> type. An array class is accessible if and only if its element type is >> accessible. >> >> This also fixes a spec bug to document `@throws NullPointerException`

Re: [jdk17] RFR: 8269409: Post JEP 411 refactoring: core-libs with maximum covering > 10K [v2]

2021-06-26 Thread Alan Bateman
On Fri, 25 Jun 2021 23:40:27 GMT, Weijun Wang wrote: >> More refactoring to limit the scope of `@SuppressWarnings` annotations. >> >> Sometimes I introduce new methods. Please feel free to suggest method names >> you like to use. > > Weijun Wang has updated the pull request incrementally with

Release of ASM 9.2

2021-06-26 Thread Remi Forax
Hi everybody, we are happy to announce the release of ASM 9.2 which support Java 18 (available via Maven Central). I still hope to find the time this summer to work of the support of Valhalla new bytecodes. Rémi

[jdk17] Integrated: JDK-8269351: Proxy::newProxyInstance and MethodHandleProxies::asInterfaceInstance should reject sealed interfaces

2021-06-26 Thread Mandy Chung
On Fri, 25 Jun 2021 17:24:58 GMT, Mandy Chung wrote: > `java.lang.reflect.Proxy::newProxyInstance` and > `java.lang.invoke.MethodHandleProxies::asInterfaceInstance` do not specify > how to deal with sealed interfaces. These APIs should reject sealed > interface with

Re: [jdk17] RFR: 8269409: Post JEP 411 refactoring: core-libs with maximum covering > 10K [v2]

2021-06-26 Thread Lance Andersen
On Fri, 25 Jun 2021 23:40:27 GMT, Weijun Wang wrote: >> More refactoring to limit the scope of `@SuppressWarnings` annotations. >> >> Sometimes I introduce new methods. Please feel free to suggest method names >> you like to use. > > Weijun Wang has updated the pull request incrementally with

Re: RFR: 6766844: ByteArrayInputStream#read with a byte array of length 0 not consistent with InputStream when at EOF [v4]

2021-06-26 Thread Alan Bateman
On Fri, 25 Jun 2021 20:50:47 GMT, Brian Burkhalter wrote: >> src/java.base/share/classes/java/io/ByteArrayInputStream.java line 163: >> >>> 161: * @apiNote >>> 162: * Unlike the {@link InputStream#read(byte[],int,int) equivalent >>> method} >>> 163: * of {@code InputStream},

Re: [jdk17] RFR: JDK-8269351: Proxy::newProxyInstance and MethodHandleProxies::asInterfaceInstance should reject sealed interfaces

2021-06-26 Thread Alan Bateman
On Fri, 25 Jun 2021 17:24:58 GMT, Mandy Chung wrote: > `java.lang.reflect.Proxy::newProxyInstance` and > `java.lang.invoke.MethodHandleProxies::asInterfaceInstance` do not specify > how to deal with sealed interfaces. These APIs should reject sealed > interface with