Access Modifier Issues

Peter Levart peter.levart at
Fri Jan 9 16:09:45 UTC 2015

On 01/09/2015 04:11 PM, Maurizio Cimadamore wrote:
> On 09/01/15 14:47, Peter Levart wrote:
>> On 01/09/2015 03:11 PM, Richard Warburton wrote:
>>> Hi gents,
>>> Not sure if its a high priority to fix the access modifier problems 
>>> at the
>>> moment, but there still seems to be a bug with Peter Levart's 
>>> default hack
>>> which I didn't see reported in the other thread.
>> Yes, Maurizio already warned about currently buggy access to private 
>> members from specialized methods. I think you can work-around by 
>> using package-private access for the time being.
> Exact. The underlying issue is a thorny one: the compiler is organized 
> in 'phases', roughly as follows:
> source -> parse -> symbol enter -> type-checking -> flow analysis -> 
> erasure -> lambda translation -> misc desugaring -> bytecode
> With specialization, the pipeline has been modified, so that an extra 
> 'specialize' step is added before erasure takes place (it has to be 
> like that, as we need to save full generic info in the AST).
> The problem is that inner classes, accessibility and all desugaring is 
> done in a later step (misc desugaring above) - meaning that for all 
> the code generated there, there would be no way to generate the magic 
> specialization attributes. Once you wrap your head around that, it's 
> typically easy to fix the code in order to make it working again (i.e. 
> in this case, tweak access) - of course this problem will be addressed 
> in a more general way.
> Maurizio

Hm, currently there seem to be two ways of triggering specialization. 
First way is by referencing classes with specialy-crafted names 
(SomeClass${0=?}) and ClassLoader then contains a hook to dispatch to 
the specialization logic. The second is used for invoking specialized 
generic methods, which works with invokedynamic and bootstrap methods. 
Would theoretically be possible to replace the 1st way (special class 
names) with the invokedynamic too? Would it be practical? Would it solve 
access problems?

Regards, Peter

>>> public class Default<any T> {
>>>      private T value;
>>>      private Default() {}
>>>      public static <any T> T value() {
>>>          return new Default<T>().value;
>>>      }
>>>      public static void main(String[] args) {
>>>          int i = Default.value();
>>>          System.out.println(i);
>>>          long l = Default.value();
>>>          System.out.println(l);
>>>          Object o = Default.value();
>>>          System.out.println(o);
>>>      }
>>> }
>>> When running:
>>> Specializing method Default$value${0=I}.value()Ljava/lang/Object; with
>>> class=[] and method=[I]
>>> Specializing Default${0=I}; searching for Default.class (not found)
>>> Specializing Default${0=I}; searching for Default.class (found)
>>> Exception in thread "main" java.lang.IllegalAccessError: tried to 
>>> access
>>> method Default${0=I}.<init>()V from class Default$value${0=I}/793589513
>>>          at Default$value${0=I}/793589513.value(
>>>          at Default.main(
>>> Looks like its workaround-able by making both the constructor and value
>>> field public.
>>> I think this also exposes something I don't understand here. My 
>>> impression
>>> was that "Default${0=I}" was the specialisation of the class Default 
>>> s.t.
>>> its first type parameter is an int. So what is "Default$value${0=I}"?
>> I think Default$value${0=I}/793589513 is a special (VM-annonymous) 
>> class, containing the specialization of static method Default.value() 
>> for T=int.
>> The problem seems to be that private constructor of specialized class 
>> Default for T=int is not accessible from it. The specialized static 
>> method does have access to private members of nonspecialized class 
>> Default (since this is the host class of it's VM-anonymous class 
>> where it is defined), but not to the specialized Default class for 
>> T=int which is a separate class. Perhaps something similar to how 
>> outer class has access to private members of inner classes and 
>> vice-versa would have to be devised among non-specialized classes and 
>> their specializations.
>> Regards, Peter
>>> regards,
>>>    Richard Warburton
>>>    @RichardWarburto <>

More information about the valhalla-dev mailing list