On Tue, 1 Jun 2021 09:30:40 GMT, Jaroslav Tulach
wrote:
> There doesn't seem to be much support for the complete changes in #4245. To
> get at least something useful from that endeavor I have extracted the test
> for existing behavior of `-XX:+PreserveAllAnnotations` and I am offering it
>
On Tue, 1 Jun 2021 09:30:40 GMT, Jaroslav Tulach
wrote:
> There doesn't seem to be much support for the complete changes in #4245. To
> get at least something useful from that endeavor I have extracted the test
> for existing behavior of `-XX:+PreserveAllAnnotations` and I am offering it
>
On Tue, 1 Jun 2021 09:30:40 GMT, Jaroslav Tulach
wrote:
> There doesn't seem to be much support for the complete changes in #4245. To
> get at least something useful from that endeavor I have extracted the test
> for existing behavior of `-XX:+PreserveAllAnnotations` and I am offering it
>
Hi Peter,
On 3/06/2021 6:52 pm, Peter Levart wrote:
On Thu, 3 Jun 2021 07:31:14 GMT, David Holmes wrote:
The code is confusing because it gives no indication that it is aware
that runtime invisible annotations could be present:
/**
* Parses the annotations described by the specified byte
On Thu, 3 Jun 2021 07:31:14 GMT, David Holmes wrote:
> > > The code is confusing because it gives no indication that it is aware
> > > that runtime invisible annotations could be present:
> > > /**
> > > * Parses the annotations described by the specified byte array.
> > > * resolving constant
On Tue, 1 Jun 2021 09:30:40 GMT, Jaroslav Tulach
wrote:
> There doesn't seem to be much support for the complete changes in #4245. To
> get at least something useful from that endeavor I have extracted the test
> for existing behavior of `-XX:+PreserveAllAnnotations` and I am offering it
>
On 3/06/2021 4:49 pm, Peter Levart wrote:
On Wed, 2 Jun 2021 22:44:10 GMT, David Holmes wrote:
I think this is not deliberate. Since `rawAnnotations` may end up having any of
the following:
- `RuntimeVisibleAnnotations` (when there were just `RUNTIME` annotation usages
compiled into the
On Wed, 2 Jun 2021 22:47:13 GMT, David Holmes wrote:
> On 3/06/2021 2:54 am, Joe Darcy wrote:
>
> > If the reflection runtime doesn't implement the semantics of
> > -XX+PreserveAllAnnotations, I suggest deprecating/obsoleting/etc. that
> > option now.
>
> I have to agree with Joe now. I
On Wed, 2 Jun 2021 22:44:10 GMT, David Holmes wrote:
> > I think this is not deliberate. Since `rawAnnotations` may end up having
> > any of the following:
> > - `RuntimeVisibleAnnotations` (when there were just `RUNTIME` annotation
> > usages compiled into the class or
On Thu, 3 Jun 2021 03:23:13 GMT, Brian Goetz wrote:
> reasonable options are to either leave it alone, deprecate it, or engage
> in a much more deliberate redesign.?
My favorite option is to leave it alone and test it a bit with the test already
provided in this PR. That however requires one
It seems pretty clear that this "feature" is a leftover from an early
implementation, doesn't clearly say what it is supposed to do, is more
complicated than it looks, and is buggily implemented. While I
understand the temptation to "fix" it, at this point we'd realistically
be adding a
On Tue, 1 Jun 2021 09:30:40 GMT, Jaroslav Tulach
wrote:
> There doesn't seem to be much support for the complete changes in #4245. To
> get at least something useful from that endeavor I have extracted the test
> for existing behavior of `-XX:+PreserveAllAnnotations` and I am offering it
>
On 3/06/2021 2:54 am, Joe Darcy wrote:
If the reflection runtime doesn't implement the semantics of
-XX+PreserveAllAnnotations, I suggest deprecating/obsoleting/etc. that
option now.
I have to agree with Joe now. I mistakenly thought the raw annotation
stream was exposed to some parts of
On 3/06/2021 1:38 am, Peter Levart wrote:
On Wed, 2 Jun 2021 13:24:10 GMT, David Holmes wrote:
Sorry now I see what happens. We aren't combining two arrays of
annotations we're concatenating two streams of byes, each of which
represents a set of annotations, starting with the length.
The
On 3/06/2021 12:39 am, Peter Levart wrote:
On Wed, 2 Jun 2021 05:59:05 GMT, David Holmes wrote:
Sorry Jaroslav but I don't really see this test as a basic functional
test of the PreserveAllAnnotations flag. There is no need for any
dynamic retention mode switch. All you need as I've said
On Wed, 2 Jun 2021 16:56:07 GMT, Joe Darcy wrote:
> If the reflection runtime doesn't implement the semantics of
> -XX+PreserveAllAnnotations, I suggest deprecating/obsoleting/etc. that
> option now.
>
> -Joe
What is the -XX+PreserveAllAnnotations semantics in terms of reflection? The VM
spec
If the reflection runtime doesn't implement the semantics of
-XX+PreserveAllAnnotations, I suggest deprecating/obsoleting/etc. that
option now.
-Joe
On 6/2/2021 7:48 AM, Peter Levart wrote:
On Tue, 1 Jun 2021 09:30:40 GMT, Jaroslav Tulach
wrote:
There doesn't seem to be much support for
On Wed, 2 Jun 2021 13:24:10 GMT, David Holmes wrote:
> Sorry now I see what happens. We aren't combining two arrays of
> annotations we're concatenating two streams of byes, each of which
> represents a set of annotations, starting with the length.
>
> The code that receives this on the JDK
On Tue, 1 Jun 2021 09:30:40 GMT, Jaroslav Tulach
wrote:
> There doesn't seem to be much support for the complete changes in #4245. To
> get at least something useful from that endeavor I have extracted the test
> for existing behavior of `-XX:+PreserveAllAnnotations` and I am offering it
>
On Wed, 2 Jun 2021 05:59:05 GMT, David Holmes wrote:
> Sorry Jaroslav but I don't really see this test as a basic functional
> test of the PreserveAllAnnotations flag. There is no need for any
> dynamic retention mode switch. All you need as I've said previously is a
> class with all the CLASS
Never mind ...
On 2/06/2021 10:47 pm, David Holmes wrote:
On 2/06/2021 10:17 pm, Peter Levart wrote:
On Wed, 2 Jun 2021 11:40:13 GMT, Peter Levart
wrote:
...hm, it seems that mere presence of any RUNTIME annotation that
was RUNTIME already at the use compile time somehow affects
On 2/06/2021 10:17 pm, Peter Levart wrote:
On Wed, 2 Jun 2021 11:40:13 GMT, Peter Levart wrote:
...hm, it seems that mere presence of any RUNTIME annotation that was RUNTIME
already at the use compile time somehow affects -XX:+PreserveAllAnnotations
option so that now RUNTIME annotations
On Wed, 2 Jun 2021 12:33:37 GMT, Peter Levart wrote:
> I suggest the following patch for the bug in AnnotationParser:
>
An alternative would be to change the `ClassFileParser::assemble_annotations`
in the VM to no be so "dumb", but to construct correct concatenation.
-
PR:
On Tue, 1 Jun 2021 09:30:40 GMT, Jaroslav Tulach
wrote:
> There doesn't seem to be much support for the complete changes in #4245. To
> get at least something useful from that endeavor I have extracted the test
> for existing behavior of `-XX:+PreserveAllAnnotations` and I am offering it
>
On Wed, 2 Jun 2021 11:40:13 GMT, Peter Levart wrote:
>> ...hm, it seems that mere presence of any RUNTIME annotation that was
>> RUNTIME already at the use compile time somehow affects
>> -XX:+PreserveAllAnnotations option so that now RUNTIME annotations that were
>> CLASS annotations at use
On Wed, 2 Jun 2021 11:34:18 GMT, Peter Levart wrote:
>> test/jdk/java/lang/annotation/AnnotationType/AnnotationTypeChangedToRuntimeTest.java
>> line 81:
>>
>>> 79: " should not be visible at runtime");
>>> 80: }
>>> 81: }
>>
>> I'm trying to understand
On Wed, 2 Jun 2021 10:36:06 GMT, Peter Levart wrote:
>> There doesn't seem to be much support for the complete changes in #4245. To
>> get at least something useful from that endeavor I have extracted the test
>> for existing behavior of `-XX:+PreserveAllAnnotations` and I am offering it
>>
On Tue, 1 Jun 2021 09:30:40 GMT, Jaroslav Tulach
wrote:
> There doesn't seem to be much support for the complete changes in #4245. To
> get at least something useful from that endeavor I have extracted the test
> for existing behavior of `-XX:+PreserveAllAnnotations` and I am offering it
>
On Tue, 1 Jun 2021 09:30:40 GMT, Jaroslav Tulach
wrote:
> There doesn't seem to be much support for the complete changes in #4245. To
> get at least something useful from that endeavor I have extracted the test
> for existing behavior of `-XX:+PreserveAllAnnotations` and I am offering it
>
On Tue, 1 Jun 2021 09:30:40 GMT, Jaroslav Tulach
wrote:
> There doesn't seem to be much support for the complete changes in #4245. To
> get at least something useful from that endeavor I have extracted the test
> for existing behavior of `-XX:+PreserveAllAnnotations` and I am offering it
>
On 01/06/2021 21:28, John Rose wrote:
:
Note to self and other reviewers of future versions
of the JVMS: When you see proposed language like
the “unless…” of JVMS 4.7.17, remember today's
conversation and try to avoid putting dark corners
like that into the JVMS.
The
On 2/06/2021 3:47 pm, Jaroslav Tulach wrote:
On Tue, 1 Jun 2021 09:30:40 GMT, Jaroslav Tulach
wrote:
There doesn't seem to be much support for the complete changes in #4245. To get
at least something useful from that endeavor I have extracted the test for
existing behavior of
On Tue, 1 Jun 2021 09:30:40 GMT, Jaroslav Tulach
wrote:
> There doesn't seem to be much support for the complete changes in #4245. To
> get at least something useful from that endeavor I have extracted the test
> for existing behavior of `-XX:+PreserveAllAnnotations` and I am offering it
>
On 01/06/2021 22:28, John Rose wrote:
On Jun 1, 2021, at 7:02 AM, Brian Goetz
mailto:brian.go...@oracle.com>> wrote:
As Alan's archaeology discovered, this flag appears to be a leftover from the
original implementation, and I could find no signs of its usage.
Note to self and other
On Jun 1, 2021, at 7:02 AM, Brian Goetz
mailto:brian.go...@oracle.com>> wrote:
As Alan's archaeology discovered, this flag appears to be a leftover from the
original implementation, and I could find no signs of its usage.
Note to self and other reviewers of future versions
of the JVMS: When
Since the discussion happened over the holiday weekend, I didn't get a
chance to respond until now, but I think that this came to a good
outcome. As Alan's archaeology discovered, this flag appears to be a
leftover from the original implementation, and I could find no signs of
its usage. We
36 matches
Mail list logo
