On Wed, 19 Jun 2024 17:30:08 GMT, Maurizio Cimadamore <mcimadam...@openjdk.org> wrote:
>> This PR adds a new JDK tool, called `jnativescan`, that can be used to find >> code that accesses native functionality. Currently this includes `native` >> method declarations, and methods marked with `@Restricted`. >> >> The tool accepts a list of class path and module path entries through >> `--class-path` and `--module-path`, and a set of root modules through >> `--add-modules`, as well as an optional target release with `--release`. >> >> The default mode is for the tool to report all uses of `@Restricted` >> methods, and `native` method declaration in a tree-like structure: >> >> >> app.jar (ALL-UNNAMED): >> main.Main: >> main.Main::main(String[])void references restricted methods: >> java.lang.foreign.MemorySegment::reinterpret(long)MemorySegment >> main.Main::m()void is a native method declaration >> >> >> The `--print-native-access` option can be used print out all the module >> names of modules doing native access in a comma separated list. For class >> path code, this will print out `ALL-UNNAMED`. >> >> Testing: >> - `langtools_jnativescan` tests. >> - Running the tool over jextract's libclang bindings, which use the FFM API, >> and thus has a lot of references to `@Restricted` methods. >> - tier 1-3 > > src/jdk.jdeps/share/classes/com/sun/tools/jnativescan/RestrictedMethodFinder.java > line 120: > >> 118: Optional<ClassResolver.Info> info = >> systemClassResolver.lookup(methodRef.owner()); >> 119: if (!info.isPresent()) { >> 120: return false; > > Is this just `false` or maybe a warning that a certain owner could not be > resolved (maybe if running with enough debug options) ? Yes, thought about that yesterday as well. Good catch ------------- PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/19774#discussion_r1646552669