On Mon, 4 May 2026 14:07:26 GMT, Per Minborg <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Implement JEP 531: Lazy Constants (Third Preview) >> >> This PR replaces _draft_ https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/pull/29507 >> >> - [x] I confirm that I make this contribution in accordance with the >> [OpenJDK Interim AI Policy](https://openjdk.org/legal/ai). > > Per Minborg has updated the pull request with a new target base due to a > merge or a rebase. The pull request now contains 69 commits: > > - Reshuffle examples and fix typo > - Merge branch 'master' into > implement-lazy-constants-third-prewiew-exceptions > - Merge branch 'openjdk:master' into master > - Merge master > - Merge branch 'openjdk:master' into master > - Add exampels and reinforce testing > - Restrict method and class visitbility > - Clean up and add IR tests > - Address additional comments > - Merge branch 'master' into > implement-lazy-constants-third-prewiew-exceptions > - ... and 59 more: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/compare/3c69c969...bdf79df1 src/java.base/share/classes/jdk/internal/lang/LazyConstantImpl.java line 72: > 70: // After the function is successfully invoked, the field is set to > 71: // `null` to allow the function to be collected. If the function > fails, the field is > 72: // set to the name of the exception class. We are not storing the > exception class Fully qualified name or simple name? src/java.base/share/classes/jdk/internal/lang/LazyConstantImpl.java line 111: > 109: throw new NoSuchElementException("Unable to access > the constant because " + > 110: computingFunctionOrExceptionType + > 111: " was thrown at initial computation"); Might it not be better to use the same message, but only include the cause the "first" time? Makes behavior more consistent. ------------- PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/30194#discussion_r3182727260 PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/30194#discussion_r3182735745
