On 2/4/19, 8:04 PM, David Holmes wrote:
Hi Gary,
On 5/02/2019 12:01 am, Gary Adams wrote:
Two of the redefine classes tests (021, 023) have been on the
ProblemList since they
were first brought into the open repos. Both tests made an incorrect
assumption
about the access modifiers in class files. There is a single bit in
the binary class file that
defines if an interface is public or not public (See JVMS Table 4.1-B
ACC_PUBLIC).
When the test classes are compiled for use in the redefine operation,
if a source
used public or protected the ACC_PUBLIC bit was set.
Several modifiers are used in these tests to confirm
UnsupportedOperationException
is thrown or not thrown. This proposed change simply corrects the
expected results
according to the JVM Specification.
Webrev:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~gadams/8065773/webrev.00/index.html
test/hotspot/jtreg/vmTestbase/nsk/jdi/VirtualMachine/redefineClasses/redefineclasses021.java
62 * Test cases 3 (private) and 4 (static) map to not public, so will
"static" is not related to access modifiers so the ACC_PUBLIC bit is
not relevant. "static" can only be applied to (nested) member types
and is represented by the ACC_STATIC bit as per JVMS "Table 4.7.6-A.
Nested class access and property flags".
What this testcase does is add "static" to a nested interface and
expects JVM TI to check if the class modifier has changed. But the
"static" is not encoded in the class "access flags", but in the inner
class attribute (inner_class_access_flags). To me this testcase should
throw UOE, but JVM TI is not checking the right flags.
David
I think the test is demonstrating that static does not change the
ACC_PUBLIC bit.
This changeset does not change the handling of that testcase.
