On Thu, 28 Jan 2021 18:18:57 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. > > Leonid Mesnik has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional > commit since the last revision: > > updated comments. Leonid, Thank you for explanation. LGTM. Thanks, Serguei ------------- Marked as reviewed by sspitsyn (Reviewer). PR: https://git.openjdk.java.net/jdk/pull/2093
