On Tue, 29 Jul 2025 21:59:41 GMT, ExE Boss <d...@openjdk.org> wrote: >> Okay, I'll remove the Holder class. I copied it from another method in the >> file. yeah, sorry for the additional shared secret but I didn't want to >> make the java.lang.Class method public. >> >> I didn't add a field to SharedSecrets, and the field in Class is transient >> which I think supersedes @Stable - at least that's what I remember from our >> discussion of the modifiers field in Class. > > I mean the existing private fields of `SharedSecrets`[^1] so that the JIT is > able to constant fold calls to `SharedSecrets::getJava*Access()` so that it > becomes equally as performant as using a `Holder` class. > > Modifiers are transient, as those are sourced from the `InnerClasses` > attribute, which can be changed when classes are redefined by a **JVMTI** > agent, but access flags can’t be changed through redefinition. > > [^1]: > https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/blob/330ee871315348594171c43aa75b58f6027001af/src/java.base/share/classes/jdk/internal/access/SharedSecrets.java#L62-L92
I don't think inner class attributes can be changed via JVMTI RedefineClasses either. I'm pretty sure we check and that's considered a change of schema. File an RFE to make SharedSecrets fields @Stable though for a different change. ------------- PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/26517#discussion_r2242267576
