Re: CONSTANT_Dynamic bootstrap signature restriction

2018-03-08 Thread Brian Goetz
ot;Daniel Heidinga" <daniel_heidi...@ca.ibm.com>, "valhalla-spec-experts" <valhalla-spec-experts@openjdk.java.net> Envoyé: Mercredi 7 Mars 2018 19:28:00 Objet: Re: CONSTANT_Dynamic bootstrap signature restriction Daniel (S), Brian, i think your view on this subject is

Re: CONSTANT_Dynamic bootstrap signature restriction

2018-03-08 Thread Dan Smith
@openjdk.java.net> >> Envoyé: Mercredi 7 Mars 2018 22:52:32 >> Objet: Re: CONSTANT_Dynamic bootstrap signature restriction > >>> On Mar 7, 2018, at 7:48 AM, Remi Forax <fo...@univ-mlv.fr> wrote: >>> >>>> This might not pan out, and if so w

Re: CONSTANT_Dynamic bootstrap signature restriction

2018-03-07 Thread forax
- Mail original - > De: "daniel smith" <daniel.sm...@oracle.com> > À: "Remi Forax" <fo...@univ-mlv.fr> > Cc: "valhalla-spec-experts" <valhalla-spec-experts@openjdk.java.net> > Envoyé: Mercredi 7 Mars 2018 22:52:32 > Objet: Re

Re: CONSTANT_Dynamic bootstrap signature restriction

2018-03-07 Thread forax
lla-spec-experts" > <valhalla-spec-experts@openjdk.java.net> > Envoyé: Mercredi 7 Mars 2018 19:28:00 > Objet: Re: CONSTANT_Dynamic bootstrap signature restriction >> Daniel (S), Brian, >> i think your view on this subject is biased by the fact that you built that

Re: CONSTANT_Dynamic bootstrap signature restriction

2018-03-07 Thread Dan Smith
> On Mar 7, 2018, at 7:48 AM, Remi Forax wrote: > >> This might not pan out, and if so we can drop the error check and return to >> where we were. >> But it seems promising, and we don't want to get stuck in 11 making >> compatibility promises >> about the interpretation of

Re: CONSTANT_Dynamic bootstrap signature restriction

2018-03-07 Thread Brian Goetz
Daniel (S), Brian, i think your view on this subject is biased by the fact that you built that library. I can understand why you'd think that, but allow me to correct.  My view is biased by the fact that I built the _first_ such library, and it was pretty annoying, and I want to save

Re: CONSTANT_Dynamic bootstrap signature restriction

2018-03-07 Thread Remi Forax
..@oracle.com>, "Daniel Heidinga" > <daniel_heidi...@ca.ibm.com> > Cc: "valhalla-spec-experts" <valhalla-spec-experts@openjdk.java.net> > Envoyé: Mardi 6 Mars 2018 22:34:13 > Objet: Re: CONSTANT_Dynamic bootstrap signature restriction > To add to th

Re: CONSTANT_Dynamic bootstrap signature restriction

2018-03-06 Thread Brian Goetz
To add to this; we've been building a library which makes extensive use of condy, and we've found that we have to write many factory methods two ways, one as an ordinary factory method and one as a bootstrap which generally just calls the regular factory.  It would reduce duplication both in

Re: CONSTANT_Dynamic bootstrap signature restriction

2018-03-05 Thread Dan Smith
> On Mar 5, 2018, at 12:56 PM, Daniel Heidinga > wrote: >> >> In discussions about future directions for CONSTANT_Dynamic, we've >> decided it would be helpful to restrict the set of legal bootstrap >> signatures. The first parameter type would be required to be

Re: CONSTANT_Dynamic bootstrap signature restriction

2018-03-05 Thread Daniel Heidinga
> >In discussions about future directions for CONSTANT_Dynamic, we've >decided it would be helpful to restrict the set of legal bootstrap >signatures. The first parameter type would be required to be declared >with type MethodHandles.Lookup. Dan, can you expand on why this restriction is helpful?