On Tue, 13 Jan 2026 16:29:30 GMT, Maurizio Cimadamore <[email protected]> wrote:
> The logic for issuing an error when a strict (instance) field is missing an > initializer relies on there being some constructor at the end of which the > error is reported. > > But if the constructor is a default constructor, there's no valid position > where to report the error. > > To fix this, I looked at how errors for uninitialized final fields. In case > of a default constructor the error is reported against the field decl, not > the constructor. I've done the same for non-nullable fields. lgtm ------------- Marked as reviewed by vromero (Committer). PR Review: https://git.openjdk.org/valhalla/pull/1897#pullrequestreview-3656995068
