Draft JEP: Incubating Language and VM Features (original) (raw)

Alex Buckley alex.buckley at oracle.com
Mon Jan 22 18:50:51 UTC 2018

On 1/20/2018 3:33 PM, forax at univ-mlv.fr wrote:

I have used the wrong word, instead of "unknown constant pool attribute", i should have use "unknown constant pool constant". Unknown class/method/field attribute are required to be silently ignored as you point out, but you can not do that for constant pool constant because unlike an attribute which encode its size so you can skip it, a constant pool constant doesn't provide its size only the JVMS provides the association between the kind of a constant pool constant and its size.

Let's suppose we have a Java SE 11-compliant JVM implementation and a 55.0 class file. You're saying that a new kind of entry in the constant pool is a cleaner way to signal the presence of class file content that's incubating in SE 11 than a non-zero minor_version. Please explain why because I don't see it.

Alex

More information about the jdk-dev mailing list