On 23/07/2019 3:08 pm, Rafael Winterhalter wrote:
Thanks, I'll send an inline version this evening. I have written a
couple of reproducers for these issues. Should I add them to jtreg and
also send them as an inline patch?
Yes, please do.
Thanks,
David
I'll submit the CSR tonight, too.
Thanks for the pointers!
Best regards, Rafael
David Holmes <david.hol...@oracle.com <mailto:david.hol...@oracle.com>>
schrieb am Di., 23. Juli 2019, 06:10:
Hi Rafael,
A couple of comments on process here ...
On 23/07/2019 6:48 am, Rafael Winterhalter wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I have created a patch such that getReceiverType() returns a
parameterized
> type if the receiver type declaration is itself generic.
Currently, the
> receiver type is always a type representation of Class such that
> annotations on the type variables or the receiver type's owner
type cannot
> be resolved:
https://gist.github.com/raphw/a155d5ef66d11e5fb131b7e6b8fb10e5
All OpenJDK contributions must be provided via OpenJDK infrastructure,
so either direct code in an email to a mailing list (attachments
usually
get stripped), or a webrev hosted on cr.openjdk.java.net
<http://cr.openjdk.java.net> (available
directly to Authors else find someone to host for you). Links to github
are not acceptable at this time.
> Note that this change can potentially break existing code if
callers of the
> method expect this behavior for parameterized receiver types.
However,
> without this change, the type information is lost and I would
argue that
> the current behavior can be considered to be incorrect.
That argument needs to be made via a Compatibility and Specification
Review (CSR) request:
https://wiki.openjdk.java.net/display/csr/Main
Cheers,
David
> Best regards, Rafael
>
