Review request JDK-8004729: Parameter Reflection API (original) (raw)

Eric McCorkle eric.mccorkle at oracle.com
Thu Jan 17 21:54:43 UTC 2013

After (lengthy) examination, it seems that properly addressing the synthesized parameters issue will require more changes to javac. In light of this, I think that the synthesized parameter logic should go in a follow-up enhancement. I have created JDK-8006345 to track this issue:

http://bugs.sun.com/view_bug.do?bug_id=8006345

Therefore, I've rolled back the changes I was making which would have synthesized parameters in the reflection API itself, and updated the webrev. Please examine for any additional concerns.

On 01/11/13 13:27, Joe Darcy wrote:

Hi Eric,

Taking another look at the code, some extra logic / checking is needed in cases where the number of source parameters (non-synthetic and non-synthesized) disagrees with the number of actual parameters at a class file level. For example, if the single source parameter of an inner class constructor is annotated, the annotation should be associated with the second parameter since the first class file parameter is a synthesized constructor added by the compiler. I think generally annotations should not be associated with synthesized or synthetic parameters. -Joe On 1/11/2013 9:03 AM, Eric McCorkle wrote: Update should be visible now.

On 01/11/13 11:54, Vitaly Davidovich wrote: Yes that's exactly what I'm looking for as well.

Sent from my phone On Jan 11, 2013 11:25 AM, "Peter Levart" <peter.levart at gmail.com_ _<mailto:peter.levart at gmail.com>> wrote: On 01/11/2013 04:54 PM, Eric McCorkle wrote: The webrev has been updated again. The multiple writes to parameters have been removed, and the tests have been expanded to look at inner classes, and to test modifiers. Please look over it again.

Hello Eric, You still have 2 reads of volatile even in fast path. I would do it this way: private Parameter[] privateGetParameters() { Parameter[] tmp = parameters; // one and only read if (tmp != null) return tmp; // Otherwise, go to the JVM to get them tmp = getParameters0(); // If we get back nothing, then synthesize parameters if (tmp == null) { final int num = getParameterCount(); tmp = new Parameter[num]; for (int i = 0; i < num; i++)_ _// TODO: is there a way to synthetically derive the_ _// modifiers? Probably not in the general case, since_ _// we'd have no way of knowing about them, but there_ _// may be specific cases._ _tmp[i] = new Parameter("arg" + i, 0, this, i);_ _// This avoids possible races from seeing a_ _// half-initialized parameters cache._ _}_ _parameters = tmp;_ _return tmp;_ _}_ _Regards, Peter_ _Test-wise, I've got a clean run on JPRT (there were some_ _failures in_ _lambda stuff, but I've been seeing that for some time now)._ _On 01/10/13 21:47, Eric McCorkle wrote:_ _On 01/10/13 19:50, Vitaly Davidovich wrote:_ _Hi Eric,_ _Parameter.equals() doesn't need null check - instanceof_ _covers that already._ _Removed._ _Maybe this has been mentioned already, but personally_ _I'm not a fan of_ _null checks such as "if (null == x)" - I prefer the_ _null_ _on the right_ _hand side, but that's just stylistic._ _Changed._ _Perhaps I'm looking at a stale webrev but_ _Executable._privateGetParameters() reads and writes_ _from/to the volatile_ _field more than once. I think Peter already mentioned_ _that it should_ _use one read into a local and one write to publish the_ _final version to_ _the field (it can return the temp as well)._ _You weren't. From a pure correctness standpoint, there is_ _nothing wrong_ _with what is there. getParameters0 is a constant_ _function, and_ _parameters is writable only if null. Hence, we only every_ _see one_ _nontrivial write to it._ _But you are right, it should probably be reduced to a_ _single_ _write, for_ _performance reasons (to avoid unnecessary memory barriers)._ _Therefore,_ _I changed it._ _However, I won't be able to refresh the webrev until_ _tomorrow._ _Thanks_ _Sent from my phone_ _On Jan 10, 2013 6:05 PM, "Eric McCorkle"_ _<eric.mccorkle at oracle.com_ _<mailto:eric.mccorkle at oracle.com> <mailto:eric.mccorkle at oracle._com_ _<mailto:eric.mccorkle at oracle.com>>> wrote: The webrev has been refreshed with the solution I describe below implemented. Please make additional comments. On 01/10/13 17:29, Eric McCorkle wrote: > Good catch there. I made the field volatile, and I also did the same > with the cache fields in Parameter. > > It is possible with what exists that you could wind up with multiple > copies of identical parameter objects in existence. It goes something > like this > > thread A sees Executable.parameters is null, goes into the VM to get them > thread B sees Executable.parameters is null, goes into the VM to get them > thread A stores to Executable.parameters > thread B stores to Executable.parameters > > Since Parameters is immutable (except for its caches, which will always > end up containing the same things), this should have no visible > effects, unless someone does == instead of .equals. > > This can be avoided by doing a CAS, which is more expensive execution-wise. > > My vote is to not do a CAS, and accept that (in extremely rare cases, > even as far as concurrency-related anomalies go), you may end up with > duplicates, and document that very well. > > Thoughts? > > On 01/10/13 16:10, Peter Levart wrote: >> Hello Eric, >> >> I have another one. Although not very likely, the reference to the same >> Method/Constructor can be shared among multiple threads. The publication >> of a parameters array should therefore be performed via a volatile write >> / volatile read, otherwise it can happen that some thread sees >> half-initialized array content. The 'parameters' field in Executable >> should be declared as volatile and there should be a single read from it >> and a single write to it in the privateGetParameters() method (you need >> a local variable to hold intermediate states)... >> >> Regards, Peter >> >> On 01/10/2013 09:42 PM, Eric McCorkle wrote: >>> Thanks to all for initial reviews; however, it appears that the version >>> you saw was somewhat stale. I've applied your comments (and some >>> changes that I'd made since the version that was posted). >>> >>> Please take a second look. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Eric >>> >>> >>> On 01/10/13 04:19, Peter Levart wrote: >>>> Hello Eric, >>>> >>>> You must have missed my comment from the previous webrev: >>>> >>>> 292 private Parameter[] privateGetParameters() { >>>> 293 if (null != parameters) >>>> 294 return parameters.get(); >>>> >>>> If/when the 'parameters' SoftReference is cleared, the method will be >>>> returning null forever after... >>>> >>>> You should also retrieve the referent and check for it's presence before >>>> returning it: >>>> >>>> Parameter[] res; >>>> if (parameters != null && (res = parameters.get()) != null) >>>> return res; >>>> ... >>>> ... >>>> >>>> Regards, Peter >>>> >>>> On 01/09/2013 10:55 PM, Eric McCorkle wrote: >>>>> Hello, >>>>> >>>>> Please review the core reflection API implementation of parameter >>>>> reflection. This is the final component of method parameter reflection. >>>>> This was posted for review before, then delayed until the check-in for >>>>> JDK-8004728 (hotspot support for parameter reflection), which occurred >>>>> yesterday. >>>>> >>>>> Note: The check-in of JDK-8004728 was into hsx/hotspot-rt, not >>>>> jdk8/tl; therefore, it may be a while before the changeset makes its way >>>>> into jdk8/tl. >>>>> >>>>> Also note: since the check-in of JDK-8004727 (javac support for >>>>> parameter reflection), there has been a failure in the tests for >>>>> Pack200. This is being addressed in a fix contributed by Kumar, which I >>>>> believe has also been posted for review. >>>>> >>>>> The open webrev is here: >>>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~_coleenp/JDK-8004729 <http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~coleenp/JDK-8004729> >>>>> >>>>> The feature request is here: >>>>> http://bugs.sun.com/viewbug._do?bugid=8004729 <http://bugs.sun.com/viewbug.do?bugid=8004729> >>>>> >>>>> The latest version of the spec can be found here: >>>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~_abuckley/8misc.pdf <http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~abuckley/8misc.pdf> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Thanks, >>>>> Eric >>

More information about the core-libs-dev mailing list