Draft JEP: Incubating Language and VM Features
alex.buckley at oracle.com
Mon Jan 22 18:50:51 UTC 2018
On 1/20/2018 3:33 PM, forax at univ-mlv.fr wrote:
> I have used the wrong word, instead of "unknown constant pool
> attribute", i should have use "unknown constant pool constant".
> Unknown class/method/field attribute are required to be silently
> ignored as you point out, but you can not do that for constant pool
> constant because unlike an attribute which encode its size so you can
> skip it, a constant pool constant doesn't provide its size only the
> JVMS provides the association between the kind of a constant pool
> constant and its size.
Let's suppose we have a Java SE 11-compliant JVM implementation and a
55.0 class file. You're saying that a new kind of entry in the constant
pool is a cleaner way to signal the presence of class file content
that's incubating in SE 11 than a non-zero minor_version. Please explain
why because I don't see it.
More information about the jdk-dev