On Mon, 24 Jun 2024 12:57:39 GMT, Jorn Vernee <jver...@openjdk.org> wrote:
>> This PR adds a new JDK tool, called `jnativescan`, that can be used to find
>> code that accesses native functionality. Currently this includes `native`
>> method declarations, and methods marked with `@Restricted`.
>>
>> The tool accepts a list of class path and module path entries through
>> `--class-path` and `--module-path`, and a set of root modules through
>> `--add-modules`, as well as an optional target release with `--release`.
>>
>> The default mode is for the tool to report all uses of `@Restricted`
>> methods, and `native` method declaration in a tree-like structure:
>>
>>
>> app.jar (ALL-UNNAMED):
>> main.Main:
>> main.Main::main(String[])void references restricted methods:
>> java.lang.foreign.MemorySegment::reinterpret(long)MemorySegment
>> main.Main::m()void is a native method declaration
>>
>>
>> The `--print-native-access` option can be used print out all the module
>> names of modules doing native access in a comma separated list. For class
>> path code, this will print out `ALL-UNNAMED`.
>>
>> Testing:
>> - `langtools_jnativescan` tests.
>> - Running the tool over jextract's libclang bindings, which use the FFM API,
>> and thus has a lot of references to `@Restricted` methods.
>> - tier 1-3
>
> Jorn Vernee has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional
> commit since the last revision:
>
> de-dupe on path, not module name
src/jdk.jdeps/share/classes/com/sun/tools/jnativescan/JNativeScanTask.java line
105:
> 103: for (String classPathEntry : classPathAttribute) {
> 104: Path otherJar = parentDir != null
> 105: ? parentDir.resolve(classPathEntry)
We'lll need to create a follow on issue to re-examine this as the value of a
Class-Path attribute aren't sequence of relative URIs (with an optional "file"
URI scheme) rather than file paths. Treating it as a file path may work in some
cases but won't work once you encounter cases that use escaping.
-------------
PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/19774#discussion_r1659018308
