8311085: Remove implementation detail writeTo from LocalVariable(Type)

[liach]

LocalVariable and LocalVariableType includes writeTo(BufWriter), which should be implementation details.

See https://mail.openjdk.org/pipermail/classfile-api-dev/2023-June/000381.html for context.

This patch moves the implementation to DirectCodeBuilder's original use sites; the old b.canWriteDirect branch is redundant, as writeIndex's implementation already performs such an optimization.

---

Progress

• Change must not contain extraneous whitespace
• Commit message must refer to an issue
• Change must be properly reviewed (2 reviews required, with at least 1 Reviewer, 1 Author)

Issue

• JDK-8311085: Remove implementation detail writeTo from LocalVariable(Type) (Bug - P4)

Reviewers

• Brian Goetz (@briangoetz - Reviewer) ⚠️ Review applies to a2e604eb

Reviewing

Using git

Checkout this PR locally:
$ git fetch https://git.openjdk.org/jdk.git pull/14705/head:pull/14705
$ git checkout pull/14705

Update a local copy of the PR:
$ git checkout pull/14705
$ git pull https://git.openjdk.org/jdk.git pull/14705/head

Using Skara CLI tools

Checkout this PR locally:
$ git pr checkout 14705

View PR using the GUI difftool:
$ git pr show -t 14705

Using diff file

Download this PR as a diff file:
https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/14705.diff

Webrev

Link to Webrev Comment

[bridgekeeper]

👋 Welcome back liach! 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]

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

• core-libs

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]

Webrevs

• 03: Full (c3429f6a)
• 02: Full - Incremental (a2e604eb)
• 01: Full - Incremental (7d9a87e2)
• 00: Full (544cde06)

[briangoetz]

This idiom is repeated four times; seems like it can be factored somewhere into a helper?

[liach]

Good idea. The same routine is used in attribute mapper for the two tables, which could be factored as well.

[mlbridge]

Mailing list message from Brian Goetz on core-libs-dev:

It is irritating that one is a type descriptor and one is a signature,
but we can launder that by observing that both are Utf8Entry.

On 6/29/2023 9:53 AM, Chen Liang wrote:
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mail.openjdk.org/pipermail/core-libs-dev/attachments/20230629/bea6b896/attachment.htm>

[openjdk]

@liach This change is no longer ready for integration - check the PR body for details.

[liach]

I will merge this one. Also during development, I found a few other issues:

1. CharacterRangeTable entry writing can be shared, and I wish to move them to this new AttributeHelpers as well.
2. CharacterRangeInfo has documentation errors: the ending pc is inclusive instead of exclusive, as seen in Classfile and javac implementations.
   /integrate

[openjdk]

@liach
Your change (at version a2e604e) is now ready to be sponsored by a Committer.

[liach]

Please hold off on sponsoring this; after another look, I find that LocalVariable and LocalVariableType can probably implement WritableElement.

Per our previous discussion, WritableElement should probably not be exposed; it is currently only exposed as a type parameter upper bound in <T extends WritableElement<?>> void writeList(List<T> list);

I think we might convert the WritableElement to an internal interface: is it possible to declare the method as void writeTo(BufWriterImpl), and the public method is yet hidden from the API because BufWriterImpl is not in an exported package? For the writeList, I would turn it into <T> void writeList(List<T> list, BiConsumer<T, BufWriter> writer) or simply remove it.

[bridgekeeper]

@liach 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!

[TheShermanTanker]

@liach You can turn this back to draft or run the reviewers 2 command to reduce this risk of accidental sponsorship

[liach]

/reviewers 2

[openjdk]

@liach
The total number of required reviews for this PR (including the jcheck configuration and the last /reviewers command) is now set to 2 (with at least 1 Reviewer, 1 Author).

[bridgekeeper]

@liach 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!

[openjdk]

@liach Please do not rebase or force-push to an active PR as it invalidates existing review comments. Note for future reference, the bots always squash all changes into a single commit automatically as part of the integration. See OpenJDK Developers’ Guide for more information.

[bridgekeeper]

@liach 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!

[bridgekeeper]

@liach This pull request has been inactive for more than 8 weeks and will now be automatically closed. If you would like to continue working on this pull request in the future, feel free to reopen it! This can be done using the /open pull request command.