778 InstanceKlass* scratch_class) {
779 int i;
780
781 // Check superclasses, or rather their names, since superclasses themselves can be
782 // requested to replace.
783 // Check for NULL superclass first since this might be java.lang.Object
784 if (the_class->super() != scratch_class->super() &&
785 (the_class->super() == NULL || scratch_class->super() == NULL ||
786 the_class->super()->name() !=
787 scratch_class->super()->name())) {
788 return JVMTI_ERROR_UNSUPPORTED_REDEFINITION_HIERARCHY_CHANGED;
789 }
790
791 // Check if the number, names and order of directly implemented interfaces are the same.
792 // I think in principle we should just check if the sets of names of directly implemented
793 // interfaces are the same, i.e. the order of declaration (which, however, if changed in the
794 // .java file, also changes in .class file) should not matter. However, comparing sets is
795 // technically a bit more difficult, and, more importantly, I am not sure at present that the
796 // order of interfaces does not matter on the implementation level, i.e. that the VM does not
797 // rely on it somewhere.
798 Array<Klass*>* k_interfaces = the_class->local_interfaces();
799 Array<Klass*>* k_new_interfaces = scratch_class->local_interfaces();
800 int n_intfs = k_interfaces->length();
801 if (n_intfs != k_new_interfaces->length()) {
802 return JVMTI_ERROR_UNSUPPORTED_REDEFINITION_HIERARCHY_CHANGED;
803 }
804 for (i = 0; i < n_intfs; i++) {
805 if (k_interfaces->at(i)->name() !=
806 k_new_interfaces->at(i)->name()) {
807 return JVMTI_ERROR_UNSUPPORTED_REDEFINITION_HIERARCHY_CHANGED;
808 }
809 }
810
811 // Check whether class is in the error init state.
812 if (the_class->is_in_error_state()) {
813 // TBD #5057930: special error code is needed in 1.6
814 return JVMTI_ERROR_INVALID_CLASS;
815 }
816
817 // Check whether the nest-related attributes have been changed.
818 jvmtiError err = check_nest_attributes(the_class, scratch_class);
819 if (err != JVMTI_ERROR_NONE) {
|
778 InstanceKlass* scratch_class) {
779 int i;
780
781 // Check superclasses, or rather their names, since superclasses themselves can be
782 // requested to replace.
783 // Check for NULL superclass first since this might be java.lang.Object
784 if (the_class->super() != scratch_class->super() &&
785 (the_class->super() == NULL || scratch_class->super() == NULL ||
786 the_class->super()->name() !=
787 scratch_class->super()->name())) {
788 return JVMTI_ERROR_UNSUPPORTED_REDEFINITION_HIERARCHY_CHANGED;
789 }
790
791 // Check if the number, names and order of directly implemented interfaces are the same.
792 // I think in principle we should just check if the sets of names of directly implemented
793 // interfaces are the same, i.e. the order of declaration (which, however, if changed in the
794 // .java file, also changes in .class file) should not matter. However, comparing sets is
795 // technically a bit more difficult, and, more importantly, I am not sure at present that the
796 // order of interfaces does not matter on the implementation level, i.e. that the VM does not
797 // rely on it somewhere.
798 Array<InstanceKlass*>* k_interfaces = the_class->local_interfaces();
799 Array<InstanceKlass*>* k_new_interfaces = scratch_class->local_interfaces();
800 int n_intfs = k_interfaces->length();
801 if (n_intfs != k_new_interfaces->length()) {
802 return JVMTI_ERROR_UNSUPPORTED_REDEFINITION_HIERARCHY_CHANGED;
803 }
804 for (i = 0; i < n_intfs; i++) {
805 if (k_interfaces->at(i)->name() !=
806 k_new_interfaces->at(i)->name()) {
807 return JVMTI_ERROR_UNSUPPORTED_REDEFINITION_HIERARCHY_CHANGED;
808 }
809 }
810
811 // Check whether class is in the error init state.
812 if (the_class->is_in_error_state()) {
813 // TBD #5057930: special error code is needed in 1.6
814 return JVMTI_ERROR_INVALID_CLASS;
815 }
816
817 // Check whether the nest-related attributes have been changed.
818 jvmtiError err = check_nest_attributes(the_class, scratch_class);
819 if (err != JVMTI_ERROR_NONE) {
|