On Fri, 11 Dec 2020 19:29:09 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. > > Mandy Chung has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional > commit since the last revision: > > Update comments in jvm.cpp per Harold's feedback IIUC, in summary this correctly aligns the runtime definition of a record with the language, which therefore and appropriately constrains the trusting of non-static final fields to only fields of records, and not more broadly to record-like classes. ------------- Marked as reviewed by psandoz (Reviewer). PR: https://git.openjdk.java.net/jdk16/pull/14
