On Fri, 6 Mar 2026 04:13:43 GMT, Quan Anh Mai <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi, > > Reflective construction of value object triggers assert in C2 because it does > not follow the normal object construction pattern and is technically UB > because we try to return a larval object from a method. I was told that this > is required for the construction of hidden classes, but to me it seems like > we put those restrictions on ourselves and shoot ourselves in the foot by > using these `Unsafe` hacks. > > This PR tries to fix this issue by letting the compiler know of these methods > which can return or accept larval objects. Note that this is pretty fragile, > and seemingly harmless changes to the code shape generated by the > `MethodHandle` mechanism can break it, which is a usual symptom of undefined > behaviour. > > Please take a look and leave your review, thanks a lot. The recognition of "may be larval" seems sufficient. Is it okay if it recognizes non-larval calls like invokespecial on private methods as "may be larval"? Would that create potential regressions? ------------- PR Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/valhalla/pull/2204#issuecomment-4009481911
