Alex Buckley alex.buckley at oracle.com
Fri Nov 22 20:11:07 UTC 2019

(Removing compiler-dev. Cross-posting to *-dev and *-spec-experts list 
is wrong. We're discussing a question driven mainly by Records, so let's 
treat it as Amber spec territory.)

On 11/22/2019 12:02 PM, Dan Smith wrote:
>> On Nov 22, 2019, at 12:22 PM, Leonid Kuskov
>> <Leonid.Kuskov at Oracle.com> wrote:
>> Does it make sense to add a definition of ACC_MANDATED to the
>> tables?
> To clarify: are you saying javac is using the 0x8000 flags on fields
> and methods, despite this flag being undefined in these contexts? Or
> are you saying that you think we should *start* using the flag on
> fields and methods, with supporting changes to the spec?
> (The first would be a bug, the second would be a minor new feature.)

Leonid is asking for the second. Have I forgotten a discussion how 
enum/records' mandated members are represented in the class file? I see 
internal Slack questions every week about mandated members and 
reflection, but there's nothing in the JVMS draft to set expectations. 
(If we decided NOT to define ACC_MANDATED in 
{field_info,method_info}.access_flags, then the JVMS should discuss that 
in a note in 4.7.8, since "mandated members" are indicated there.)


More information about the amber-spec-experts mailing list