On Fri, 11 Dec 2020 17:58:33 GMT, Mandy Chung <mch...@openjdk.org> 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 > > That fixes trusting final fields of records to align with the JLS definition > of a record class. `InstanceKlass::is_record` is fixed to check a record > class must be final and a direct subclass of `java.lang.Record` with the > presence of the `Record` attribute. There is no change to JVM class file > validation. I also propose clearly define: > - `JVM_IsRecord` returns true if the given class is a record i.e. final and > direct subclass of `java.lang.Record` with `Record` attribute > - `JVM_GetRecordComponents `returns an `RecordComponents` array if `Record` > attribute is present; otherwise, returns NULL. This does not check if it's a > record class or not. So it may return non-null on a non-record class if it > has `Record` attribute. So `JVM_GetRecordComponents` returns the content of > the classfile. > > tier1-tier3 and jck-runtime:vm and jck-runtime:lang tests all passed. Marked as reviewed by chegar (Reviewer). ------------- PR: https://git.openjdk.java.net/jdk16/pull/14
