RFR: JDK-8190452: javac should not add MethodParameters attributes to v51 and earlier class files
vicente.romero at oracle.com
Sat Feb 3 18:39:08 UTC 2018
On 02/03/2018 12:37 AM, Liam Miller-Cushon wrote:
> Hi Vicente, thanks for the review!
> I inlined the golden files into the test class. I don't think inlining
> Lib.java works with the current approach of using `@compile --release
> 7/8` and reflection to access the parameter names, because the
> reflective APIs were added in 8. I could rewrite the test to use class
> reading instead of reflection if you prefer.
yes I was thinking about class reading but I'm OK with the current
version of the patch
> Here's the updated webrev:
> > Regarding your questions about what to do with the -Xlint:X options.
> I don't have any opinion on one way or the other, is there any reason
> to change them?
> I thought it was potentially surprising that -parameters will now be
> silently ignored for Java 7 and earlier language levels. Warning about
> that flag combination would make the new behaviour more discoverable.
> Since the bug shipped in 9 and 10 there are some <v52 class files with
> MethodParameters in the wild, and I've seen cases where it broke
> builds using -Xlint:classfile and -Werror.
> I don't think either of those are common problems. If you think we
> should leave the -Xlint handling as-is that sounds good to me.
as discussed off-line with Jon, yes please add the warning, but feel
free to do it as part of this bug or in a different one.
> On Fri, Feb 2, 2018 at 6:17 AM, Vicente Romero
> <vicente.romero at oracle.com <mailto:vicente.romero at oracle.com>> wrote:
> Hi Liam,
> The fix looks OK, regarding the test, I don't see the need for the
> two golden files as they can be constants in the test per se. In
> addition, the whole test could be self contained in only one class
> that compiles the Lib.java source. Regarding your questions about
> what to do with the -Xlint:X options. I don't have any opinion on
> one way or the other, is there any reason to change them?
> On 02/01/2018 01:56 PM, Liam Miller-Cushon wrote:
>> Bump. I'm happy to implement either of the alternatives I
>> mentioned, but was hoping to get feedback on the approach first.
>> On Wed, Jan 17, 2018 at 11:51 AM, Liam Miller-Cushon
>> <cushon at google.com <mailto:cushon at google.com>> wrote:
>> Please review a fix for JDK-8190452. The change causes javac
>> to not emit MethodParameters attributes when targeting v51
>> class files.
>> The change implements the suggestion from this thread:
>> There are two related changes that may be worth considering:
>> * now that -parameters will be ignored when compiling with
>> --release < 8, should this combination of flags result in a
>> warning if -Xlint:options is enabled?
>> * since this wasn't fixed in JDK 9, there are v51 class files
>> in the wild that contain unexpected MethodParameters
>> attributes. Should -Xlint:classfile be relaxed to avoid
>> warning on those?
>> bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8190452
>> webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~cushon/8190452/webrev.00/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the compiler-dev