The explanation which Stuart gives for this change in https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8167005 seems to describe why this constructor is needed much better than the comment itself does. So I wonder if it's worth adding the link to the bug report in the comment. E.g.
// prevent generation of synthetic class required for access to private // constructor. See: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8167005 Kind regards, Jonathan On 4 October 2016 at 21:28, Stuart Marks <stuart.ma...@oracle.com> wrote: > > > On 10/4/16 3:55 AM, Claes Redestad wrote: > >> >> On 2016-10-04 12:52, Aleksey Shipilev wrote: >> >>> On 10/04/2016 12:50 PM, Claes Redestad wrote: >>> >>>> Webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~redestad/8167005/webrev.01/ >>>> >>> >>> OK. >>> >>> Thanks for the speedy review! :-) >> > > Thanks for looking at this. The shorter text in the bug report is ok too. > > s'marks > >
