On Mon, 26 Oct 2026 06:48:57 GMT, David Holmes <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> So the intent here is to change what the current JEP-401 specification is >>> and to ship this variant instead for the first preview? >> >> There are a number of JVMTI issues with value class and strict fields. Most >> of these issues were identified during the review of the changes for the >> initial JEP 401 integration - the agreement was to work on them the JEP >> integration. So hopefully most will be addressed before the fork in Dec. > >> the agreement was to work on them the JEP integration > > Understood. I just have no idea what process to follow here with regards to > CSR requests or updating the JEP and it's CSR request to reflect the final > JVM TI changes. > @dholmes-ora wrote: > > > But I would not expect there is a need for a Release Note as this is all > > new behaviour in relation to value objects. > > Okay. I'll remove the `release-note=yes` label. There are a lot of updates to JVMTI for strict fields and value classes, and more to come. It might be that it's easier for debugger vendors to digest all of these changes in one release note rather than a dozen small ones. ------------- PR Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/33526#issuecomment-6435629363
