On Wed, 29 Jul 2026 14:52:02 GMT, David Simms <[email protected]> wrote:

>> This pull request implements the first 
>> [preview](https://openjdk.org/jeps/12) of [JEP 401: Value 
>> Objects](https://openjdk.org/jeps/401):
>> 
>> - [JDK-8317277](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8317277): Java language 
>> implementation of value objects
>>   - https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/pull/31121
>> - [JDK-8317278](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8317278): JVM 
>> implementation of value objects
>>   - https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/pull/31122
>> - [JDK-8317279](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8317279): Standard 
>> library implementation of value objects
>>   - https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/pull/31123
>> 
>> This pull request also includes the implementation of [Strict Field 
>> Initialization in the JVM (Preview)](https://openjdk.org/jeps/8350458) (yet 
>> to have been assigned a JEP number). That work was implemented in the same 
>> code base because JEP 401 depends on strict field initialization.
>> 
>> This is the "*master pull request*" for the initial preview of [JEP 
>> 401](https://openjdk.org/jeps/401). Comments and review for a change this 
>> large will not scale well in a single pull request. This pull request serves 
>> as the vehicle for sign-off and integration into 
>> [`jdk/master`](https://github.com/openjdk/jdk). **Review comments should be 
>> directed to the appropriate "*sub-review pull request*" listed above.**
>> 
>>> [!NOTE]
>>> The "*sub-review pull requests*" contain the same full set of code changes 
>>> as this "*master pull request*" to preserve the full implementation 
>>> context; the language compiler, JVM, and standard library changes are 
>>> intertwined. The separate pull requests exist only to subdivide the review 
>>> and related discussion by area.
>> 
>> Any resulting code changes should be made in 
>> [`valhalla/lworld`](https://github.com/openjdk/valhalla/).
>> 
>> `valhalla/lworld` is currently updated from `jdk/master` whenever a weekly 
>> [`jdk` tag](https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/tags) is created. At that time, 
>> code changes from `valhalla/lworld` will be propagated to this pull request 
>> and to all sub-review pull requests.
>> 
>> Ultimately, review sign-off will be recorded on this "*master pull 
>> request*", and the "*sub-review pull requests*" will be closed without 
>> integration.
>> 
>> This pull request has a large surface area and frequently conflicts with 
>> `jdk/master`. Refer to 
>> [`valhalla/lworld`](https://github.com/openjdk/valhalla/) for the latest 
>> state of the project code, keeping in mind that it may lag several days 
>> behind `jdk/master`. Both repositories may be needed as referenc...
>
> David Simms has updated the pull request with a new target base due to a 
> merge or a rebase. The pull request now contains 2927 commits:
> 
>  - Merge remote-tracking branch 'valhalla/lworld' into 8317277
>  - 8389322: [lworld] Disable TestNullableInlineTypes::test103() until 
> JDK-8389088 is fixed
>    
>    Reviewed-by: thartmann, dcubed
>  - 8389085: [lworld] C2: assert(field_value != nullptr) failed in 
> PhaseMacroExpand::inline_type_from_mem
>    
>    Reviewed-by: mhaessig, chagedorn
>  - 8388966: [lworld] compiler/igvn/TestMaskedStoreIdealization.java fails 
> with Valhalla
>    
>    Reviewed-by: mchevalier, thartmann
>  - 8388928: [lworld] ProblemList 
> compiler/vectorapi/TestVectorReassociations.java
>    
>    Reviewed-by: thartmann
>  - Merge
>    
>    Merge jdk-28+8
>  - Merge
>    
>    Merge jdk-28+7
>  - 8388318: [lworld] jdk.internal.value.Deserializer annotation should not be 
> honored on application classes
>    
>    Reviewed-by: dlsmith, alanb, jpai
>  - 8388462: [lworld] Provide more context about wrapper class caches
>    
>    Reviewed-by: darcy, thartmann
>  - 8388524: [lworld] JVMTI cleanup
>    
>    Reviewed-by: dholmes
>  - ... and 2917 more: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/compare/5428159f...efddcf20

@MrSimms - I suspect there is a problem with the bot updating this PR.

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

PR Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/31120#issuecomment-5120396609

Reply via email to