Do package-infos need to be reset between annotation processing rounds?

Liam Miller-Cushon cushon at
Wed Dec 6 09:11:56 UTC 2017

I think the current implementation of Filer doesn't check if generated
classes override arbitrary classes on the classpath, it only checks if they
clash with previously generated classes, or the sources and classes that
were explicit inputs to the compilation:

On Tue, Dec 5, 2017 at 11:48 PM, Jonathan Gibbons <
jonathan.gibbons at> wrote:

> We'll need Joe "Mr Annotation Processing" Darcy to chime in here, but the
> Filer is supposed to detect clashes, and prevent overwriting/overriding
> symbols. That's definitely supposed to happen for normal
> classes/interfaces; I could believe that package-info has been overlooked,
> but I would expect it to follow the same guidelines.
> -- Jon
> On 12/5/17 6:24 PM, Liam Miller-Cushon wrote:
> Is overriding package-infos different or worse than overriding other
> symbols? I've seen a number of examples where the same source file was
> compiled multiple times and the earlier results ended up on the class path
> of the later compilations, so a processor-generated class was both on the
> class path and generated during the compilation. Making that an error would
> be a somewhat invasive breaking change. I agree that it should be
> discouraged, but I'm not sure it's worth making an error? (Unless there's
> something special about package-infos that I'm missing.)
> On Tue, Dec 5, 2017 at 6:09 PM, Jonathan Gibbons <
> jonathan.gibbons at> wrote:
>> Generally, annotation processing is supposed to only create information
>> where there was no information previously,  so if a package had a
>> package-info with annotations, it seems like it should be an error to
>> override it with another package-info, with or without annotations.
>> -- Jon
>> On 12/05/2017 05:39 PM, Liam Miller-Cushon wrote:
>> Thanks! If an annotated package-info is loaded from the class path, and
>> then a processor generates a package-info that contains no annotations, the
>> reset is necessary. (The reset isn't necessary if the new package-info is
>> annotated, since the old annotations get overwritten even if they weren't
>> reset between rounds.)
>> On Tue, Dec 5, 2017 at 4:46 PM, Jonathan Gibbons <
>> jonathan.gibbons at> wrote:
>>> Liam,
>>> What about the case where an annotation processor generates the
>>> file? Is that a case where it is important to reinit the
>>> packge symbol correctly, so that the newly generated code is read?
>>> -- Jon
>>> On 12/05/2017 03:39 PM, Liam Miller-Cushon wrote:
>>>> I have a question about the logic in JavacProcessingEnvironment's
>>>> treeCleaner that resets package-info state between annotation processing
>>>> rounds [1].
>>>> JDK-8193037 describes an issue where package-infos loaded from the
>>>> classpath are reset by treeCleaner. Those symbols doesn't get reinitialized
>>>> correctly, and package annotations are not visible during subsequent
>>>> annotation processing rounds.
>>>> I wondered if the logic was only meant to apply to package-infos being
>>>> compiled from source in the current compilation (similar to how
>>>> module-infos are handle by treeCleaner), but I'm having trouble
>>>> understanding when that logic is necessary. Commenting out
>>>> `node.packge.package_info.reset();` and `node.packge.reset();` in
>>>> treeCleaner doesn't break any jtreg tests. Does anyone have examples where
>>>> that code is needed? I'd like to add a regression test to ensure the fix
>>>> for JDK-8193037 doesn't interfere with the original purpose of that code.
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> [1]
>>>> .compiler/share/classes/com/sun/tools/javac/processing/Javac
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <>

More information about the compiler-dev mailing list