On Oct 28, 2020, at 1:05 PM, fo...@univ-mlv.fr wrote:
>
> I've never seen such bytecode shapes but I don't think i've ever seen a
> classfile compiled with a version which was less that Java 1.2.
…I’ve seen bytecode shapes, such bytecode shapes as
would freeze the marrow.
It was dark and rainy,
> De: "John Rose"
> À: "Remi Forax"
> Cc: "Valhalla Expert Group Observers"
> , "daniel smith"
> , "valhalla-spec-experts"
>
> Envoyé: Mercredi 28 Octobre 2020 20:08:30
> Objet: Re: Source code analysis: calls to wrapp
nvoyé: Mercredi 28 Octobre 2020 20:36:59
> Objet: Re: Source code analysis: calls to wrapper class constructors
> On Oct 28, 2020, at 2:32 PM, John Rose < [ mailto:john.r.r...@oracle.com |
> john.r.r...@oracle.com ] > wrote:
>> invokestatic Integer.$pop2$valueOf(Object,int)V
&
On Oct 28, 2020, at 2:32 PM, John Rose wrote:
>
> invokestatic Integer.$pop2$valueOf(Object,int)V
That would be invokestatic Integer.$pop2$valueOf(String,int,String)V
And the dummy object could be an Integer (using a condy) if we don’t
want to edit the stack maps that might mention the Integer.
On Oct 28, 2020, at 10:49 AM, Dan Smith wrote:
>
> You're right that this disrupts verification; I think we can address this
> pre-verification by rewriting the StackMapTable, eliminating all references
> to 'uninitialized(Offset)' and shrinking the stack by two.
Or we can try to keep the veri
uot;John Rose"
>> À: "daniel smith"
>> Cc: "valhalla-spec-experts"
>> Envoyé: Mercredi 28 Octobre 2020 05:56:29
>> Objet: Re: Source code analysis: calls to wrapper class constructors
>
>> On Oct 27, 2020, at 12:27 PM, Dan Smith wrote:
- Mail original -
> De: "daniel smith"
> À: "Remi Forax" , "John Rose"
> Cc: "valhalla-spec-experts"
> Envoyé: Mercredi 28 Octobre 2020 16:49:49
> Objet: Re: Source code analysis: calls to wrapper class constructors
>> On O
> On Oct 27, 2020, at 10:56 PM, John Rose wrote:
>
> One of the reasons it’s not going to be comprehensive
> is code like new Integer(complicatedExpr()), in which
> the `new` and `invokespecial ` are separated
> by (almost) arbitrarily complex bytecode.
> On Oct 28, 2020, at 3:25 AM, Remi Forax
- Mail original -
> De: "daniel smith"
> À: "Remi Forax"
> Cc: "valhalla-spec-experts"
> Envoyé: Mardi 27 Octobre 2020 21:36:21
> Objet: Re: Source code analysis: calls to wrapper class constructors
>> On Oct 27, 2020, at 2:00 PM
- Mail original -
> De: "John Rose"
> À: "daniel smith"
> Cc: "valhalla-spec-experts"
> Envoyé: Mercredi 28 Octobre 2020 05:56:29
> Objet: Re: Source code analysis: calls to wrapper class constructors
> On Oct 27, 2020, at 12:27 PM, Da
On Oct 27, 2020, at 12:27 PM, Dan Smith wrote:
>
> This tooling will support common bytecode patterns like 'new Foo; dup; ...;
> invokespecial Foo.;', but will not be a comprehensive solution.
> (Mimicking the behavior of instance initialization method invocation in full
> generality would be
On Oct 27, 2020, at 1:36 PM, Dan Smith wrote:
>
> I'm not sure whether there's a mechanism in HotSpot to generate warnings
> about deprecated APIs at link/run time. It does seem like it would be a
> reasonable feature...
+1
There is no such feature at present; maybe something
could be built o
> On Oct 27, 2020, at 2:00 PM, Remi Forax wrote:
>
> Three remarks:
> - the compiler can warn because a code is using new Integer(value) or warn
> because the compiler will automatically transform all new Integer(value) to
> Integer.valueOf() once Valhalla is integrated,
> i prefer the second
- Mail original -
> De: "daniel smith"
> À: "valhalla-spec-experts"
> Envoyé: Mardi 27 Octobre 2020 20:27:39
> Objet: Re: Source code analysis: calls to wrapper class constructors
>> On Oct 19, 2020, at 6:01 PM, Dan Smith wrote:
>>
>&
> On Oct 19, 2020, at 6:01 PM, Dan Smith wrote:
>
> In the context of the Warnings for Value-Based Classes JEP, we're looking for
> usages of the deprecated wrapper class constructors ('new Integer(...)', 'new
> Double(...)', etc.). When do these get used? How often is this motivated by
> want
Overall, I find this data quite encouraging. It says that when we
finally deprecate something, the warnings get noticed, and a lot of uses
are fixed within a few years. Surely raising DepCon to FOR_REMOVAL will
have additional effect.
On 10/23/2020 9:20 PM, Dan Smith wrote:
One more data-ga
One more data-gathering exercise: I took a closer look at some popular Maven
projects to see how they've evolved in their use of wrapper constructors.
-
junit:junit
< 4.12 (<2014): many problems in junit.framework.Assert & org.junit.Assert
4.12-4.13 (2014-2020): a few problems in junit.frame
Here are some numbers looking at Maven jars published since 2019:
116,532 jars
4,726 jars that invoke a wrapper constructor (4.1%)
1,031 jars that have more than 10 classes invoking a wrapper constructor (0.9%)
If we focus just on the largest projects (jars with >1000 classes):
3,315 jars
1,620 j
> On Oct 19, 2020, at 6:01 PM, Dan Smith wrote:
>
> In the context of the Warnings for Value-Based Classes JEP, we're looking for
> usages of the deprecated wrapper class constructors ('new Integer(...)', 'new
> Double(...)', etc.). When do these get used? How often is this motivated by
> want
19 matches
Mail list logo
