On Fri, 18 Oct 2024 04:24:31 GMT, Ioi Lam <ik...@openjdk.org> wrote: >> We only resolve indys for the boot/platform/app class loaders, so there's no >> need to support class unloading. I've added a comment and tightened up the >> code with asserts. See version >> [382446d](https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/pull/21143/commits/382446d41bb79c4bd2c1dfeda656dfa2a73466b4) > > (I've replied to this comment. I can see it in the mailing list but it seems > to be lost on this page, so I'll add it again) > > We only resolve indys for the boot/platform/app class loaders, so there's no > need to support class unloading. I've updated the comment and tghtened up the > code with asserts. See version > [382446d](https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/pull/21143/commits/382446d41bb79c4bd2c1dfeda656dfa2a73466b4)
I looked at the InnerClassLambdaMetaFactory and it only generates MHs.Lookup.ClassOption::STRONG classes that live as long as their corresponding loaders. Given that, do we want an assert here that we are only dealing with strong hidden classes? ie: `assert(ik->is_hidden() && !ik->is_non_strong_hidden());` ------------- PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/21143#discussion_r1806644336
