On Thu, 16 Apr 2026 12:29:57 GMT, Casper Norrbin <[email protected]> wrote:

>> Hi everyone,
>> 
>> `AccessFlags::print_on` is used for class, field and method printing, but 
>> those entities do not share the same modifier set. The current helper 
>> hard-codes a single mixed list of access flags for all 3 and is thus unaware 
>> of the type of the printed value. Instead of using a single shared printing 
>> function, we should move the printing to the relevant class, field, and 
>> method call sites. This makes the printer aware of the type it is printing 
>> and lets us check only the flags that are relevant for that type.
>> 
>> For this change, I remove `AccessFlags::print_on` and split the printing 
>> into 3 separate helpers:
>> - `InstanceKlass::print_class_flags`
>> - `Method::print_access_flags`
>> - `fieldDescriptor::print_access_flags`
>> 
>> As a part of that, I added the missing `AccessFlags` predicates used by each 
>> of the new printers, and updated each printer to check all the flags 
>> relevant for its type, as defined by `jvm_constants.h`. This lets us cover 
>> class-specific, method-specific, and field-specific modifiers that were not 
>> handled before.
>> 
>> I also added new gtests covering each of the 3 printing helpers and the 
>> previously missing flags.
>> 
>> Testing:
>> - Oracle tiers 1-3
>> - New gtests covering each of the printing helpers and each of the new flags
>> 
>> ---------
>> - [x] I confirm that I make this contribution in accordance with the 
>> [OpenJDK Interim AI Policy](https://openjdk.org/legal/ai).
>
> Casper Norrbin has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional 
> commit since the last revision:
> 
>   feedback fixes

src/hotspot/share/oops/instanceKlass.cpp line 3709:

> 3707:   if (flags.is_private   ()) st->print("private ");
> 3708:   if (flags.is_protected ()) st->print("protected ");
> 3709:   if (flags.is_public    ()) st->print("public ");

Nit: use the same order as for fields and methods.

-------------

PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/30746#discussion_r3098424370

Reply via email to