On Mon, 23 Sep 2024 15:15:15 GMT, Adam Sotona <asot...@openjdk.org> wrote:
>> Chen Liang has updated the pull request with a new target base due to a >> merge or a rebase. The pull request now contains 14 commits: >> >> - Merge branch 'master' of https://github.com/openjdk/jdk into >> fix/constant-moving >> - omission in tests >> - Merge branch 'master' of https://github.com/openjdk/jdk into >> fix/constant-moving >> - Rename constants at new locations, link to related factories, cp tag >> constant names >> - Fix compile errors >> - Merge branch 'master' of https://github.com/openjdk/jdk into >> fix/constant-moving >> - Merge branch 'master' of https://github.com/openjdk/jdk into >> fix/constant-moving >> - Merge branch 'master' of https://github.com/openjdk/jdk into >> fix/constant-moving >> - Compile errors; now tests are all green. >> - Move Constant Pool tags to PoolEntry >> >> Two unexpected usages in jlink raw processing, but rest is fine >> - ... and 4 more: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/compare/6fd043f1...fa9ea36d > > src/java.base/share/classes/java/lang/classfile/Opcode.java line 1133: > >> 1131: */ >> 1132: @PreviewFeature(feature = PreviewFeature.Feature.CLASSFILE_API) >> 1133: public static final class OpcodeValues { > > I think we should not introduce a new API class just to expose int constants > we plan to hide under the Opcode. > My proposal is to hard-code the opcodes in the Opcode initialization and > remove OpcodeValues class. I think we can move these values to an implementation class like `RawBytecodeHelper` as we make use of these values. We can always move these constants back if there is need. ------------- PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/20773#discussion_r1771661393
