On Fri, 15 Jan 2021 07:07:30 GMT, Leonid Mesnik <[email protected]> wrote:
> The test failed because it expects that public/protected/default/private and > static modifiers differ on the JVM level like in Java source code. However, > only the ACC_PUBLIC modifier has an effect on interfaces. > > Here is my proposal from bug comments: > > I looked at the test and checked bytecode and spec. > > Indeed, the bytecode of all redefineclasses021bi redefined classes differs > only by ACC_PUBLIC attribute. So there is no sense to test other access > levels even they exist in JLS. > > The last redefinition adds 'static' modifier and verifies that there is no > UOE is thrown. However static modifiers are also not set for interfaces > because according to JLS it is set implicitly. > https://docs.oracle.com/javase/specs/jls/se8/html/jls-8.html#jls-8.5.1 > "A member interface is implicitly static (ยง9.1.1). It is permitted for the > declaration of a member interface to redundantly specify the static modifier." > The test already has been fixed to verify that UOE is not thrown but it just > doesn't do anything, assuming that bytecode is the same. So I believe this > test case might safely be deleted. > > > It is also InnerClasses_attribute in redefineclasses021b which points to > attributes of the inner class. However, the spec says that it used by the > compiler only. Also, the test doesn't redefine this class but interface only. > See https://docs.oracle.com/javase/specs/jvms/se13/html/jvms-4.html: > "inner_class_access_flags > The value of the inner_class_access_flags item is a mask of flags used to > denote access permissions to and properties of the class or interface C as > declared in the source code from which this class file was compiled. It is > used by a compiler to recover the original information when the source code > is not available. The flags are specified in Table 4.7.6-A." > > So I think it is enough just to check public vs not public access modifiers. The updated TestDescription.java claims this: * This test performs the following cases: * 1. newclass01 - adding <public> interface-modifier * 2. newclass02 - removing <public> interface-modifier Both interfaces 021bi and 021bir initially have public modifier in newclass01/redefineclasses021b.java: 35 public interface redefineclasses021bi { 36 // ^^^^^^ 37 void dummyMethod01(); 39 } 41 public interface redefineclasses021bir { 42 void dummyMethod01(); 44 } and both are removed in the newclass02/redefineclasses021b.java: 39 interface redefineclasses021bi { 40 void dummyMethod01(); 42 } 44 /* public */ interface redefineclasses021bir { 45 //^^^^^^^^ 46 void dummyMethod01(); 48 } It is not clear in what direction the classes are being redefined. Could you explain a little bit? redefineClasses/redefineclasses021.java: * This test performs the following cases: <br> - * 1. newclass01 - adding <code>public</code> interface-modifier <br> - * 2. newclass02 - adding <code>protected</code> interface-modifier <br> - * 3. newclass03 - adding <code>private</code> interface-modifier <br> - * 4. newclass04 - adding <code>static</code> interface-modifier <br> + * 1. newclass01 - adding <code>public</code> interface-modifier <br> + * 1. newclass01 - removing <code>public</code> interface-modifier <br> The change above does not match the TestDescription.java above. Should it be like below?: + * 1. newclass01 - adding <code>public</code> interface-modifier <br> + * 2. newclass02 - removing <code>public</code> interface-modifier <br> ------------- PR: https://git.openjdk.java.net/jdk/pull/2093
