On Fri, 3 Nov 2023 12:40:48 GMT, Jim Laskey <jlas...@openjdk.org> wrote:
>> Address changes from JEP 445 to JEP 463. >> >> - Move from a SYNTHETIC unnamed class to a MANDATED implicit class. >> >> - Don't mark class on read. >> >> - Remove reflection and annotation processing related to unnamed classes. >> >> - Simplify main method search. > > Jim Laskey has updated the pull request with a new target base due to a merge > or a rebase. The incremental webrev excludes the unrelated changes brought in > by the merge/rebase. The pull request contains 12 additional commits since > the last revision: > > - Merge remote-tracking branch 'upstream/master' into 8315458 > - Don't get args unless necessary > - Remove unnamed classes from examples.not-yet.txt > - Requested corrections > - Changes recommended by Jan > - Revised implicit class test > - Don't store main method info globally. Use addition calls to fetch info. > - Update JEP number in PreviewFeature > - Remove MANDATED flag from implicit classes > - Remove .orig files > - ... and 2 more: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/compare/8f2f4091...0bd5b477 src/java.base/share/native/libjli/java.c line 559: > 557: > 558: /* Build platform specific argument array */ > 559: if ((mainType & MAIN_WITHOUT_ARGS) == 0) { nice, thanks src/java.base/share/native/libjli/java.c line 561: > 559: if ((mainType & MAIN_WITHOUT_ARGS) == 0) { > 560: mainArgs = CreateApplicationArgs(env, argv, argc); > 561: CHECK_EXCEPTION_NULL_LEAVE(mainArgs); side: this is just a comment not proposing any change, I know it is a good practice to check for nulls here, but having a null here is really possible? how can we have a null here? ------------- PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/16461#discussion_r1381763339 PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/16461#discussion_r1381775757
