On Sat, 28 Mar 2026 02:24:14 GMT, Yasumasa Suenaga <[email protected]> wrote:
> On the review for [JDK-8380955](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8380955) > (#30443), `Linker` and `FunctionDescriptor` do not need to be value based > class because they would not be treated as "value". > `Linker` is defined as providing a way to look up the canonical layouts > associated with the data types used by the ABI. `FunctionDescriptor` > represents the signature of a foreign function. They are not "value". > > Actually they and their child (final) classes do not have `@ValueBased`, thus > `javac` and `-XX:DiagnoseSyncOnValueBasedClasses` cannot identify if they are > used in anti-pattern of value based class. Thus this change does not change > behavior, just documentation updates. Can I get review for both this PR and [CSR](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8381234)? As I wrote above, I think both `Linker` and `FunctionDescriptor` should not be value based class. However I agree to exclude `FunctionDescriptor` from this PR if I can see use case that `FunctionDescriptor` is used as value (e.g. compares like `==`). ------------- PR Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/30481#issuecomment-4196887420
