Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

8288130: compiler error with AP and explicit record accessor #9160

Closed

Conversation

vicente-romero-oracle
Copy link
Contributor

@vicente-romero-oracle vicente-romero-oracle commented Jun 15, 2022

Please review this PR which is fixing a tricky bug in records. Right now this code is trivial to compile by javac:

record TestRecord<T>(T someValue) {
    public T someValue() {
        return this.someValue;
    }
}

but in the presence of an annotation processor this code is entered at least two times. Every one of those times a new type variable is created. Now for records this have some implications. Record components are created once, in most cases unless there is an error for example, meaning that the type of the record component in this case was not in sync with the type of the accessor, and this is a mismatch reported as an error by the compiler. Note that if the accessor was not explicitly declared but generated this wouldn't happen as the accessor is generated from the info in the record component so a generated accessor is always in sync with its corresponding record component.

A possible solution to this issue could be to recreate the record component if there is at least a type variable in its type. But I decided to go for an all in solution recreating the record component always so if there are annotation processor rounds, a new record component would be created for each of them. This way we can future-proof this area of records which has seen bugs in the past and be sure that we are always dealing with a fresh instance of the record components.

TIA


Progress

  • Change must be properly reviewed (1 review required, with at least 1 Reviewer)
  • Change must not contain extraneous whitespace
  • Commit message must refer to an issue

Issue

  • JDK-8288130: compiler error with AP and explicit record accessor

Reviewers

Reviewing

Using git

Checkout this PR locally:
$ git fetch https://git.openjdk.org/jdk pull/9160/head:pull/9160
$ git checkout pull/9160

Update a local copy of the PR:
$ git checkout pull/9160
$ git pull https://git.openjdk.org/jdk pull/9160/head

Using Skara CLI tools

Checkout this PR locally:
$ git pr checkout 9160

View PR using the GUI difftool:
$ git pr show -t 9160

Using diff file

Download this PR as a diff file:
https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/9160.diff

@bridgekeeper
Copy link

bridgekeeper bot commented Jun 15, 2022

👋 Welcome back vromero! 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 openjdk bot added the rfr Pull request is ready for review label Jun 15, 2022
@openjdk
Copy link

openjdk bot commented Jun 15, 2022

@vicente-romero-oracle 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.

@openjdk openjdk bot added the compiler compiler-dev@openjdk.org label Jun 15, 2022
@mlbridge
Copy link

mlbridge bot commented Jun 15, 2022

Webrevs

Copy link
Contributor

@lahodaj lahodaj left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Overall, the approach seems fine to me. Added some comments for consideration.

// Found a good record component: just return.
return rc;
}
toRemove = rc;
}
}
RecordComponent rc = null;
if (toRemove != null) {
// Found a record component with an erroneous type: remove it and create a new one
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Maybe update this comment?

field.mods.flags &= ~Flags.VARARGS;
RecordComponent rec = tree.sym.getRecordComponent(field.sym);
TreeCopier<JCTree> tc = new TreeCopier<>(make.at(field.pos));
List<JCAnnotation> originalAnnos = rec.getOriginalAnnos().isEmpty() ?
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

For you consideration:
-when instead of rec.getOriginalAnnos().isEmpty() ..., maybe just tc.copy(rec.getOriginalAnnos()) (with a possible tweak to the copy method to not create the ListBuffer when the input is empty?)
-when setting the annotations, fields.mods.annotations = originalAnnos might be better, as it will keep other metadata of the modifiers (if needed/useful)

@@ -1510,22 +1510,14 @@ public RecordComponent getRecordComponent(JCVariableDecl var, boolean addIfMissi
* case we need to use the position to disambiguate
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I'd suggest to consider renaming this method. It does not "get" the record component, it (re-)creates it The addIfMissing parameter appears to be always true, and can be removed.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I agree

@openjdk
Copy link

openjdk bot commented Jun 24, 2022

@vicente-romero-oracle 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:

8288130: compiler error with AP and explicit record accessor

Reviewed-by: jlahoda

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 33 new commits pushed to the master branch:

  • 0828881: 8289166: ProblemList tools/jlink/plugins/CompressorPluginTest.java
  • 4cdb978: 8289098: clean up ported serviceability/jvmti tests
  • 9918b6d: 8288609: Update --release 19 symbol information for JDK 19 build 28
  • f67c536: 8288935: Remove excessive includes introduced in loom
  • 239b4bb: 8289095: (fs) UnixCopyFile build error on linux-x86
  • 0d2952e: 8289129: [BACKOUT] JDK-8287281 adjust guarantee in Handshake::execute for the case of target thread being current
  • fdc8455: 8288495: [test] Make OutputAnalyzer exception more informative
  • 925084c: 8288976: classfile parser 'wrong name' error message has the names the wrong way around
  • 17aacde: 8288669: compiler/vectorapi/VectorFPtoIntCastTest.java still fails with "IRViolationException: There were one or multiple IR rule failures."
  • 9dc9a64: 8287281: adjust guarantee in Handshake::execute for the case of target thread being current
  • ... and 23 more: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/compare/50c37f53f2ebd2fbbfd9dc5dd055658c55e4c69a...master

As there are no conflicts, your changes will automatically be rebased on top of these commits when integrating. If you prefer to avoid this automatic rebasing, please check the documentation for the /integrate command for further details.

➡️ To integrate this PR with the above commit message to the master branch, type /integrate in a new comment.

@openjdk openjdk bot added the ready Pull request is ready to be integrated label Jun 24, 2022
@vicente-romero-oracle
Copy link
Contributor Author

thanks for the review

@vicente-romero-oracle
Copy link
Contributor Author

/integrate

@openjdk
Copy link

openjdk bot commented Jun 24, 2022

Going to push as commit 53b37fe.
Since your change was applied there have been 33 commits pushed to the master branch:

  • 0828881: 8289166: ProblemList tools/jlink/plugins/CompressorPluginTest.java
  • 4cdb978: 8289098: clean up ported serviceability/jvmti tests
  • 9918b6d: 8288609: Update --release 19 symbol information for JDK 19 build 28
  • f67c536: 8288935: Remove excessive includes introduced in loom
  • 239b4bb: 8289095: (fs) UnixCopyFile build error on linux-x86
  • 0d2952e: 8289129: [BACKOUT] JDK-8287281 adjust guarantee in Handshake::execute for the case of target thread being current
  • fdc8455: 8288495: [test] Make OutputAnalyzer exception more informative
  • 925084c: 8288976: classfile parser 'wrong name' error message has the names the wrong way around
  • 17aacde: 8288669: compiler/vectorapi/VectorFPtoIntCastTest.java still fails with "IRViolationException: There were one or multiple IR rule failures."
  • 9dc9a64: 8287281: adjust guarantee in Handshake::execute for the case of target thread being current
  • ... and 23 more: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/compare/50c37f53f2ebd2fbbfd9dc5dd055658c55e4c69a...master

Your commit was automatically rebased without conflicts.

@openjdk openjdk bot added the integrated Pull request has been integrated label Jun 24, 2022
@openjdk openjdk bot closed this Jun 24, 2022
@openjdk openjdk bot removed ready Pull request is ready to be integrated rfr Pull request is ready for review labels Jun 24, 2022
@openjdk
Copy link

openjdk bot commented Jun 24, 2022

@vicente-romero-oracle Pushed as commit 53b37fe.

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

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
compiler compiler-dev@openjdk.org integrated Pull request has been integrated
2 participants