Review request for JDK-8014230: Compilation incorrectly succeeds with inner class constructor with 254 parameters

Eric McCorkle eric.mccorkle at
Thu Jun 20 11:38:33 PDT 2013

Thank you for the suggestions, Alex.  I have applied all except the
change to "threshold".  I named it as such because the test asserts that
methods with "threshold" arguments should pass, but ones with
"threshold" + 1 should fail.  It seems to exactly describe the meaning.

A new webrev has been posted:

Also, there are several successful JPRT runs (minus a known issue).

Since Jon made comments earlier, I would like to hear from him before I

On 06/19/13 17:57, Alex Buckley wrote:
> - There is less coverage because NumArgs1/2 tested instance and static
> methods while the new MethodArgs only tests instance methods.
> - There is no such thing as a static inner class. An inner class is
> non-static by definition (JLS7 8.1.3). The term StaticInnerClass should
> be replaced with StaticNestedClass throughout.
> - For grouping purposes, it would be good to prefix ConstructorArgs and
> MethodArgs with "ToplevelClass". Later, we'll have an "AnonClass" prefix
> too.
> - Might rename threshold to maxArgs in NumArgs. (Is a threshold
> something you can step up to but not on, or something you can step on?)
> - Might rename retty ("return type") to result, since the field can
> store "void" and void is not a [return] type (JLS7 8.4.5)
> - Might rename ClassNestingDef to NestedClassBuilder.
> Alex
> On 6/19/2013 12:08 PM, Eric McCorkle wrote:
>> Added a new constructor to Main that allows tests to pass in their own
>> Log, facilitating much more precise tests of what errors the compilers
>> generates.
>> I also rolled all the arg limit tests into a general framework.
>> Webrev is here:
>> On 06/14/13 16:30, Jonathan Gibbons wrote:
>>> There are two solutions.
>>> For a one-off test, the standard technique is to use a golden file
>>> in conjunctions with rawDiagnostics.   The combination is
>>> "somewhat frail" but nowhere near "incredibly frail".  The technique
>>> has served us well for many years now.
>>> If you are driving javac through the Compiler API, you can register
>>> a DiagnosticListener, and verify the characteristics of the Diagnostic
>>> objects passed to report.
>>> -- Jon
>>> On 06/14/2013 01:14 PM, Eric McCorkle wrote:
>>>> Is there a more convenient API for checking error messages?  Golden
>>>> will
>>>> make for an incredibly frail test, I think.
>>>> On 06/14/13 15:46, Jonathan Gibbons wrote:
>>>>> The change to Gen looks OK, but the tests look weak.  At a minimum, I
>>>>> would expect to see the test check the validity of the error message
>>>>> that is generated; even better would be to generate the test cases on
>>>>> the fly.
>>>>> -- Jon
>>>>> On 06/14/2013 11:29 AM, Eric McCorkle wrote:
>>>>>> Hello,
>>>>>> Please review this patch, which addresses a problem with javac not
>>>>>> taking inner this parameters into account when determining if
>>>>>> there are
>>>>>> too many parameters to a function.
>>>>>> The webrev is here:
>>>>>> The bug report is here:
>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>> Eric
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: eric_mccorkle.vcf
Type: text/x-vcard
Size: 314 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : 

More information about the compiler-dev mailing list