8200145: Conditional expression mistakenly treated as standalone #2324

lgxbslgx · 2021-01-30T08:50:53Z

Hi all,

If the argument Type t of the method Types.unboxedType is an ErrorType, the Types.unboxedType may return the wrong result. And in this case, Attr.isBooleanOrNumeric and Attr.isBooleanOrNumeric return the wrong result, too.

This patch fixes it and adds a test case.
Thank you for taking the time to review.

Best Regards.
-- xiong

Progress

Change must not contain extraneous whitespace
Commit message must refer to an issue
Change must be properly reviewed

Issue

JDK-8200145: Conditional expression mistakenly treated as standalone

Reviewers

Maurizio Cimadamore (@mcimadamore - Reviewer) ⚠️ Review applies to bf5e88f

Reviewing

Using git

Checkout this PR locally:
$ git fetch https://git.openjdk.java.net/jdk pull/2324/head:pull/2324
$ git checkout pull/2324

Update a local copy of the PR:
$ git checkout pull/2324
$ git pull https://git.openjdk.java.net/jdk pull/2324/head

Using Skara CLI tools

Checkout this PR locally:
$ git pr checkout 2324

View PR using the GUI difftool:
$ git pr show -t 2324

Using diff file

Download this PR as a diff file:
https://git.openjdk.java.net/jdk/pull/2324.diff

bridgekeeper · 2021-01-30T08:51:08Z

👋 Welcome back lgxbslgx! A progress list of the required criteria for merging this PR into master will be added to the body of your pull request. There are additional pull request commands available for use with this pull request.

openjdk · 2021-01-30T08:52:13Z

@lgxbslgx The following label will be automatically applied to this pull request:

compiler

When this pull request is ready to be reviewed, an "RFR" email will be sent to the corresponding mailing list. If you would like to change these labels, use the /label pull request command.

mlbridge · 2021-01-30T08:55:54Z

Webrevs

bridgekeeper · 2021-02-27T11:40:59Z

@lgxbslgx This pull request has been inactive for more than 4 weeks and will be automatically closed if another 4 weeks passes without any activity. To avoid this, simply add a new comment to the pull request. Feel free to ask for assistance if you need help with progressing this pull request towards integration!

shipilev · 2021-04-16T08:03:47Z

I think we want to ping @lahodaj to see if this makes sense.

mcimadamore

The fix looks good - it's a good "quality of life" fix, which improves the conditional classification by making it more resilient to erroneous types. I wonder if the fix can be made more minimal (see code comment).

mcimadamore · 2021-04-16T15:53:34Z

src/jdk.compiler/share/classes/com/sun/tools/javac/code/Types.java

@@ -4323,6 +4323,8 @@ public Type boxedTypeOrType(Type t) {
     * Return the primitive type corresponding to a boxed type.
     */
    public Type unboxedType(Type t) {
+        if (t.hasTag(ERROR))


This is not necessary, right? After all, you check for errors upfront, in the conditional code. Reason I'm asking is that it's not clear to me as to whether we should just return the error type, or no type. Also, this might affect code which is unrelated to the one you are fixing.

(I am not an expert on types, so I may be wrong.)

This method seems to return either the primitive type for which t is a box, or noType. So returning a noType for erroneous type seems reasonable to me. Basically, it would mean that an erroneous type is not a box for any type, which seems sensible. (Currently, every erroneous type is seen as the box for the first primitive type in the sequence, which I think is byte.)

I agree only one of these two changes is needed, although I'd personally probably try to go with the one here, in unboxedType, as it seems like a generally desirable behavior to me. I agree it can have effects on other parts of the code, though, so it has more potential to break something.

I'm ok with going for the proposed fix, as long as tests are ok. Approving.

Yes, this is not necessary if we only solve this bug. But it is useful logically. And all the related tests passed locally and passed at the Pre-submit tests. So I think it is good to remain it.

mcimadamore · 2021-04-16T15:54:05Z

src/jdk.compiler/share/classes/com/sun/tools/javac/comp/Attr.java

@@ -1956,7 +1956,7 @@ private boolean isBooleanOrNumeric(Env<AttrContext> env, JCExpression tree) {
        }
        //where
            boolean primitiveOrBoxed(Type t) {
-                return (!t.hasTag(TYPEVAR) && types.unboxedTypeOrType(t).isPrimitive());
+                return (!t.hasTag(TYPEVAR) && !t.hasTag(ERROR) && types.unboxedTypeOrType(t).isPrimitive());


Good catch - you can also use !t.isErroneous() here.

openjdk · 2021-04-16T17:28:12Z

@lgxbslgx This change now passes all automated pre-integration checks.

ℹ️ This project also has non-automated pre-integration requirements. Please see the file CONTRIBUTING.md for details.

After integration, the commit message for the final commit will be:

8200145: Conditional expression mistakenly treated as standalone

Reviewed-by: mcimadamore

You can use pull request commands such as /summary, /contributor and /issue to adjust it as needed.

At the time when this comment was updated there had been no new commits pushed to the master branch. If another commit should be pushed before you perform the /integrate command, your PR will be automatically rebased. If you prefer to avoid any potential automatic rebasing, please check the documentation for the /integrate command for further details.

As you do not have Committer status in this project an existing Committer must agree to sponsor your change. Possible candidates are the reviewers of this PR (@mcimadamore) but any other Committer may sponsor as well.

➡️ To flag this PR as ready for integration with the above commit message, type /integrate in a new comment. (Afterwards, your sponsor types /sponsor in a new comment to perform the integration).

lgxbslgx · 2021-04-17T07:21:58Z

/integrate

openjdk · 2021-04-17T07:23:16Z

@lgxbslgx
Your change (at version 2fe7665) is now ready to be sponsored by a Committer.

lgxbslgx · 2021-04-17T16:10:50Z

I updated the code according to the comment. Thank you for reviewing again and sponsoring.

/integrate

openjdk · 2021-04-17T16:11:47Z

@lgxbslgx
Your change (at version ec4c640) is now ready to be sponsored by a Committer.

lgxbslgx · 2021-04-21T14:18:02Z

@mcimadamore Could I get your help to re-review and sponsor? Thanks a lot.

mcimadamore · 2021-04-21T14:35:54Z

/sponsor

openjdk · 2021-04-21T14:37:17Z

@mcimadamore @lgxbslgx Since your change was applied there have been 63 commits pushed to the master branch:

41fc7dd: 8199079: Test javax/swing/UIDefaults/6302464/bug6302464.java is unstable
45c474a: 8168408: Test java/awt/Focus/ActualFocusedWindowTest/ActualFocusedWindowBlockingTest.java fails intermittentently on windows
18ee419: 8198422: Test java/awt/font/StyledMetrics/BoldSpace.java is unstable
da86029: 8265326: Strange Characters in G1GC GC Log
7879adb: 8265343: Update Debian-based cross-compilation recipes
98cb81b: 8265237: String.join and StringJoiner can be improved further
ed477da: 8264945: Optimize the code-gen for Math.pow(x, 0.5)
7146104: 8265421: java/lang/String/StringRepeat.java test is missing a memory requirement
b5c92ca: 8265106: IGV: Enforce en-US locale while parsing ideal graph
3de0dcb: 8265483: All-caps “JAVA” in the top navigation bar
... and 53 more: https://git.openjdk.java.net/jdk/compare/cb8394a841023b2cf4a9103f47f50e3fd28c5b04...master

Your commit was automatically rebased without conflicts.

Pushed as commit 07a7510.

💡 You may see a message that your pull request was closed with unmerged commits. This can be safely ignored.

8200145: Conditional expression mistakenly treated as standalone

bf5e88f

openjdk bot added the rfr Pull request is ready for review label Jan 30, 2021

openjdk bot added the compiler compiler-dev@openjdk.org label Jan 30, 2021

mcimadamore reviewed Apr 16, 2021

View reviewed changes

mcimadamore approved these changes Apr 16, 2021

View reviewed changes

openjdk bot added the ready Pull request is ready to be integrated label Apr 16, 2021

Use method isErroneous

2fe7665

openjdk bot added the sponsor Pull request is ready to be sponsored label Apr 17, 2021

Merge branch 'master' into JDK-8200145

ec4c640

openjdk bot removed the sponsor Pull request is ready to be sponsored label Apr 17, 2021

openjdk bot added the sponsor Pull request is ready to be sponsored label Apr 17, 2021

openjdk bot closed this Apr 21, 2021

openjdk bot added integrated Pull request has been integrated and removed sponsor Pull request is ready to be sponsored ready Pull request is ready to be integrated rfr Pull request is ready for review labels Apr 21, 2021

lgxbslgx deleted the JDK-8200145 branch April 21, 2021 14:51

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

8200145: Conditional expression mistakenly treated as standalone #2324

8200145: Conditional expression mistakenly treated as standalone #2324

lgxbslgx commented Jan 30, 2021 •

edited by openjdk bot

Loading

bridgekeeper bot commented Jan 30, 2021

openjdk bot commented Jan 30, 2021

mlbridge bot commented Jan 30, 2021 •

edited

Loading

bridgekeeper bot commented Feb 27, 2021

shipilev commented Apr 16, 2021

mcimadamore left a comment •

edited

Loading

mcimadamore Apr 16, 2021

lahodaj Apr 16, 2021

mcimadamore Apr 16, 2021

lgxbslgx Apr 17, 2021

mcimadamore Apr 16, 2021

lgxbslgx Apr 17, 2021

openjdk bot commented Apr 16, 2021 •

edited

Loading

lgxbslgx commented Apr 17, 2021

openjdk bot commented Apr 17, 2021

lgxbslgx commented Apr 17, 2021

openjdk bot commented Apr 17, 2021

lgxbslgx commented Apr 21, 2021

mcimadamore commented Apr 21, 2021

openjdk bot commented Apr 21, 2021

8200145: Conditional expression mistakenly treated as standalone #2324

8200145: Conditional expression mistakenly treated as standalone #2324

Conversation

lgxbslgx commented Jan 30, 2021 • edited by openjdk bot Loading

Progress

Issue

Reviewers

Reviewing

bridgekeeper bot commented Jan 30, 2021

openjdk bot commented Jan 30, 2021

mlbridge bot commented Jan 30, 2021 • edited Loading

Webrevs

bridgekeeper bot commented Feb 27, 2021

shipilev commented Apr 16, 2021

mcimadamore left a comment • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

mcimadamore Apr 16, 2021

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

lahodaj Apr 16, 2021

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

mcimadamore Apr 16, 2021

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

lgxbslgx Apr 17, 2021

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

mcimadamore Apr 16, 2021

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

lgxbslgx Apr 17, 2021

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

openjdk bot commented Apr 16, 2021 • edited Loading

lgxbslgx commented Apr 17, 2021

openjdk bot commented Apr 17, 2021

lgxbslgx commented Apr 17, 2021

openjdk bot commented Apr 17, 2021

lgxbslgx commented Apr 21, 2021

mcimadamore commented Apr 21, 2021

openjdk bot commented Apr 21, 2021

lgxbslgx commented Jan 30, 2021 •

edited by openjdk bot

Loading

mlbridge bot commented Jan 30, 2021 •

edited

Loading

mcimadamore left a comment •

edited

Loading

openjdk bot commented Apr 16, 2021 •

edited

Loading