On Fri, 21 Aug 2026 19:43:35 GMT, Serguei Spitsyn <[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). > > src/java.se/share/data/jdwp/jdwp.spec line 2702: > >> 2700: "if 'this' represents a " >> 2701: "<a >> href=../../api/java.base/java/lang/Class.html#isValue()>value >> object<sup>PREVIEW</sup></a>, " >> 2702: "the value returned will be for a snapshot of the " > > Q: This part is not fully present in the updates at lines 2619-2622 and > 2799-2703: > "represents a value object **_under construction_**". > Is it intentional? If so, could you elaborate, please? Your are right. It's a bug. I'll correct it. ------------- PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/32220#discussion_r3833636377
