On Wed, 6 Dec 2023 15:32:54 GMT, Per Minborg <pminb...@openjdk.org> wrote:
>> This PR proposes to change the exception type for exceptions thrown for >> certain methods with a parameter of type `MemorySegment` when it is >> `MemorySegment::isReadOnly`. Previously an `UnsupportedOperationException` >> was specified but in some cases, in reality, an `IllegalArgumentException` >> was thrown. >> >> The principle used in this PR is that operations acting on an MS where the >> MS is `this` should throw an `UnsupportedOperationException` whereas in >> cases where the MS is a *parameter* an `IllegalArgumentException` should be >> thrown. >> >> It should be noted that this PR retains the previous behavior for MS >> VarHandle access (even though the MS is a parameter to the accessor methods, >> the first parameter can be said to represent `this`). > > Per Minborg has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional > commit since the last revision: > > Update throws docs fror SegmentAllocator src/java.base/share/classes/java/lang/foreign/SegmentAllocator.java line 95: > 93: * @param str the Java string to be converted into a C string > 94: * @return a new native segment containing the converted C string > 95: * @throws IllegalArgumentException if the allocated segment is I don't think the changes here are useful. What does it mean for an allocated segment to be read-only? I think all these conditions are tied to `prefixAllocator` blindly accepting read-only segments, which should NOT be the case. I suggest to revert all the chnages here and document (and throw) a new exception for when a prefix allocator is created from a read-only segment. src/java.base/share/classes/jdk/internal/foreign/AbstractMemorySegmentImpl.java line 367: > 365: > 366: @ForceInline > 367: public void checkAccess(long offset, long length, AccessConstraint > access) { These changes should be reverted, I don't think we use the UOE mode anymore. Just revert the impl to what it was before (also true for VarHandle templates). ------------- PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/16993#discussion_r1417525637 PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/16993#discussion_r1417528416