On Wed, 3 Jun 2026 17:57:17 GMT, Alan Bateman <[email protected]> wrote:
>> David Simms has updated the pull request with a new target base due to a >> merge or a rebase. The pull request now contains 2754 commits: >> >> - Merge remote-tracking branch 'valhalla/lworld' into >> jep401_sub_review_8317279 >> - Merge >> >> Merge jdk-27+24 >> - 8385674: [lworld] TestNullableInlineTypes.java fails after JDK-8325632 >> >> Reviewed-by: mchevalier >> - 8385652: [lworld] RedefineClasses should use stack map frame name >> >> Reviewed-by: fparain >> - 8384107: [lworld] Update runtime/contended tests to run the same testing >> for value classes >> >> Reviewed-by: fparain, lmesnik >> - 8385600: [lworld] DA/DU issues with strict fields >> >> Reviewed-by: vromero >> - 8384897: [lworld] this.staticField should be restricted in early >> construction context >> >> Reviewed-by: liach, vromero >> - 8385601: [lworld] Update testing documentation for the ValueClassPlugin >> jtreg option >> >> Reviewed-by: lmesnik >> - 8385569: [lworld] Apply JDK-8343767 to Valhalla specific StubRoutines >> >> Reviewed-by: fparain, vlivanov >> - 8385581: [lworld] Remove the experimental JVMCI feature >> 8382708: [lworld] JVMCI support for Value Objects >> 8372605: [lworld] >> compiler/jvmci/jdk.vm.ci.runtime.test/src/jdk/vm/ci/runtime/test/TestResolvedJava*.java >> fail with --enable-preview >> >> Reviewed-by: thartmann >> - ... and 2744 more: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/compare/2c7efc08...9e804255 > > src/hotspot/share/prims/jvmtiEnv.cpp line 2738: > >> 2736: // modifiers_ptr - pre-checked for null >> 2737: jvmtiError >> 2738: JvmtiEnv::GetClassModifiers(oop k_mirror, jint* modifiers_ptr) { > > Can you confirm that we are testing this with value classes? I didn't find > anything in test/hotspot/jtreg/serviceability/jvmti. The context for asking > is seeing that the exported APIs are consistent. I made this change, so I could [revert `test/hotspot/jtreg/vmTestbase/nsk/jdi/Accessible/modifiers/modifiers001.java`](https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/commit/a7ecceb9bd1a99f0674b76a852cc3ab2c25326a4#diff-cbe0d206a08bb013eee2a8cfcc05b7298f91ae960cd17448d2960346295d5c65) to mainline equivalent. I don't think this is being tested with value classes unfortunately, seems the existing tests are the ones in jdi around the test I last modified. However, these tests are run with preview-enabled VM so the "SUPER" trusting does work with preview identity classes. I don't know if core libs or hotspot (serviceability) would be in charge of adding such a value class test. ------------- PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/31123#discussion_r3353440157
