> This is a follow-up on JDK-8255342 that removes non-specified JVM checks on
> classes with RecordComponents attributes.
>
> See the discussion at
> https://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/amber-spec-experts/2020-December/002670.html
>
> That fixes trusting final fields of records to align wit
On Fri, 11 Dec 2020 19:29:09 GMT, Mandy Chung wrote:
>> This is a follow-up on JDK-8255342 that removes non-specified JVM checks on
>> classes with RecordComponents attributes.
>>
>> See the discussion at
>> https://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/amber-spec-experts/2020-December/002670.html
>
On Fri, 11 Dec 2020 19:29:09 GMT, Mandy Chung wrote:
>> This is a follow-up on JDK-8255342 that removes non-specified JVM checks on
>> classes with RecordComponents attributes.
>>
>> See the discussion at
>> https://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/amber-spec-experts/2020-December/002670.html
>
> This is a follow-up on JDK-8255342 that removes non-specified JVM checks on
> classes with RecordComponents attributes.
>
> See the discussion at
> https://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/amber-spec-experts/2020-December/002670.html
>
> That fixes trusting final fields of records to align wit
On Fri, 11 Dec 2020 17:58:33 GMT, Mandy Chung wrote:
> This is a follow-up on JDK-8255342 that removes non-specified JVM checks on
> classes with RecordComponents attributes.
>
> See the discussion at
> https://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/amber-spec-experts/2020-December/002670.html
>
> T
On Fri, 11 Dec 2020 17:58:33 GMT, Mandy Chung wrote:
> This is a follow-up on JDK-8255342 that removes non-specified JVM checks on
> classes with RecordComponents attributes.
>
> See the discussion at
> https://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/amber-spec-experts/2020-December/002670.html
>
> T
On Thu, 10 Dec 2020 22:59:16 GMT, Mandy Chung wrote:
>> Hi Remi,
>>
>>> For me, it's backout JDK-8247444, as i said on the amber-spec-expert, i
>>> prefer VM to be oblivious about java.lang.Record.
>>> And in the future, the real fix is to change the spec of Field.set() to say
>>> that it's on
This is a follow-up on JDK-8255342 that removes non-specified JVM checks on
classes with RecordComponents attributes.
See the discussion at
https://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/amber-spec-experts/2020-December/002670.html
That fixes trusting final fields of records to align with the JLS defi
On Thu, 10 Dec 2020 22:56:34 GMT, Mandy Chung wrote:
>> Marked as reviewed by chegar (Reviewer).
>
> Hi Remi,
>
>> For me, it's backout JDK-8247444, as i said on the amber-spec-expert, i
>> prefer VM to be oblivious about java.lang.Record.
>> And in the future, the real fix is to change the spe
On Thu, 10 Dec 2020 14:13:27 GMT, Chris Hegarty wrote:
>> This is a follow-up on JDK-8255342 that removes non-specified JVM checks on
>> classes with `RecordComponents` attributes. That introduces a regression in
>> `InstanceKlass::is_record` that returns true on a non-record class which has
- Mail original -
> De: "Mandy Chung"
> À: "core-libs-dev" , "hotspot-runtime-dev"
>
> Envoyé: Mercredi 9 Décembre 2020 01:43:34
> Objet: Re: RFR: 8257596: Clarify trusted final fields for record classes
> On Tue, 8 Dec 2020 22:52:37 GM
On Tue, 8 Dec 2020 22:52:37 GMT, Mandy Chung wrote:
> This is a follow-up on JDK-8255342 that removes non-specified JVM checks on
> classes with `RecordComponents` attributes. That introduces a regression in
> `InstanceKlass::is_record` that returns true on a non-record class which has
> `Rec
On Tue, 8 Dec 2020 22:52:37 GMT, Mandy Chung wrote:
> This is a follow-up on JDK-8255342 that removes non-specified JVM checks on
> classes with `RecordComponents` attributes. That introduces a regression in
> `InstanceKlass::is_record` that returns true on a non-record class which has
> `Rec
On Tue, 8 Dec 2020 22:52:37 GMT, Mandy Chung wrote:
> This is a follow-up on JDK-8255342 that removes non-specified JVM checks on
> classes with `RecordComponents` attributes. That introduces a regression in
> `InstanceKlass::is_record` that returns true on a non-record class which has
> `Rec
On Tue, 8 Dec 2020 22:52:37 GMT, Mandy Chung wrote:
> This is a follow-up on JDK-8255342 that removes non-specified JVM checks on
> classes with Record attributes. That introduces a regression in
> `InstanceKlass::is_record` that returns true on a non-record class which has
> `RecordComponent
- Mail original -
> De: "Mandy Chung"
> À: "core-libs-dev" , "hotspot-dev"
>
> Envoyé: Mardi 8 Décembre 2020 23:57:39
> Objet: RFR: 8257596: Clarify trusted final fields for record classes
Hi Mandy,
> This is a follow-up on JDK-
This is a follow-up on JDK-8255342 that removes non-specified JVM checks on
classes with Record attributes. That introduces a regression in
`InstanceKlass::is_record` that returns true on a non-record class which has
`RecordComponents` attribute present. This causes unexpected semantics in
`
17 matches
Mail list logo
