On Wed, 5 Aug 2026 19:50:12 GMT, Chris Plummer <[email protected]> wrote:
> Note: This is the same PR as the valhalla PR > https://github.com/openjdk/valhalla/pull/2658, which was deferred until after > valhalla integration. I've made one change to it, which is to get rid of the > (useless) "class=preview-mark" references, which you can see in the 2nd > changeset. > > Rather saying "if preview is enabled", instead the text can just refer to the > specific preview feature and then a link to a related preview API. This will > result in a PREVIEW superscript being part of the link, clearly designating > the feature as preview. For example: > > - * If preview features are enabled in the target VM, this method does > not prevent a > - * strictly-initialized field from being read before it has been > initialized. > + * This method does not prevent a > + * {@linkplain java.lang.reflect.Field#isStrictInit() > strictly-initialized field} > + * from being read before it has been initialized. > > > Also, [JDK-8388113](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8388113) was suppose > to include some JDWP spec clarifying comments about strict field > initialization behavior, but it was accidentally not included in the PR. That > content is being added here. > > --------- > - [x] I confirm that I make this contribution in accordance with the [OpenJDK > Interim AI Policy](https://openjdk.org/legal/ai). Marked as reviewed by alanb (Reviewer). The updates to the JDWP spec mean new testable assertions so I think it will need a CSR. src/java.se/share/data/jdwp/jdwp.spec line 2144: > 2142: "When preview features are enabled in the target VM, " > 2143: "the method can not be the constructor of a " > 2144: "<a > href=../../api/java.base/java/lang/Class.html#isValue()>value > class<sup>PREVIEW</sup></a>." Okay for now, we'll like replace this with JDK-8387648 as all options for that issue change this. ------------- PR Review: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/32220#pullrequestreview-4936314825 PR Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/32220#issuecomment-5292298409 PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/32220#discussion_r3782948583
