Correct synthetic parameter handling in inner classes #98
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
| Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
|---|---|---|
| @@ -0,0 +1,155 @@ | ||
| From 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 | ||
| From: zml <zml@stellardrift.ca> | ||
| Date: Thu, 13 May 2021 23:55:33 -0700 | ||
| Subject: [PATCH] More correctly handle inner class synthetic parameters | ||
|
|
||
|
|
||
| diff --git a/src/org/jetbrains/java/decompiler/main/rels/NestedClassProcessor.java b/src/org/jetbrains/java/decompiler/main/rels/NestedClassProcessor.java | ||
| index fe372662be3fbd310f94831b47f21b92033a851c..f50e767ab81de739cad2059b5a8279fcd7cdba25 100644 | ||
| --- a/src/org/jetbrains/java/decompiler/main/rels/NestedClassProcessor.java | ||
| +++ b/src/org/jetbrains/java/decompiler/main/rels/NestedClassProcessor.java | ||
| @@ -35,6 +35,8 @@ import java.util.*; | ||
|
There was a problem hiding this comment. I've tested this and it does not seem to effect decompiled code at all. So i'm gunna split this out and we can discuss it in more depth later. |
||
| import java.util.Map.Entry; | ||
|
|
||
| public class NestedClassProcessor { | ||
| + public static final String ENUM_SYNTHETIC_SUPER = "<synthetic_super>"; | ||
| + | ||
| public void processClass(ClassNode root, ClassNode node) { | ||
| // hide synthetic lambda content methods | ||
| if (node.type == ClassNode.CLASS_LAMBDA && !node.lambdaInformation.is_method_reference) { | ||
| @@ -386,7 +388,6 @@ public class NestedClassProcessor { | ||
| for (ClassNode nd : node.nested) { | ||
| if (nd.type != ClassNode.CLASS_LAMBDA && | ||
| !nd.classStruct.isSynthetic() && | ||
| - (nd.access & CodeConstants.ACC_STATIC) == 0 && | ||
| (nd.access & CodeConstants.ACC_INTERFACE) == 0) { | ||
| clTypes |= nd.type; | ||
|
|
||
| @@ -503,23 +504,12 @@ public class NestedClassProcessor { | ||
|
|
||
| if (interPairMask == null) { // member or local and never instantiated | ||
| interPairMask = interMask != null ? new ArrayList<>(interMask) : new ArrayList<>(); | ||
| - | ||
| - boolean found = false; | ||
| - | ||
| - for (int i = 0; i < interPairMask.size(); i++) { | ||
| - if (interPairMask.get(i) != null) { | ||
| - if (found) { | ||
| - interPairMask.set(i, null); | ||
| - } | ||
| - found = true; | ||
| - } | ||
| - } | ||
| + } else { | ||
| + mergeListSignatures(interPairMask, interMask, true); | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| - mergeListSignatures(interPairMask, interMask, true); | ||
| - | ||
| for (VarFieldPair pair : interPairMask) { | ||
| - if (pair != null && !pair.fieldKey.isEmpty()) { | ||
| + if (pair != null && !pair.fieldKey.isEmpty() && !NestedClassProcessor.ENUM_SYNTHETIC_SUPER.equals(pair.fieldKey)) { | ||
| nestedNode.mapFieldsToVars.put(pair.fieldKey, pair.varPair); | ||
| } | ||
| } | ||
| @@ -764,7 +754,14 @@ public class NestedClassProcessor { | ||
| List<VarFieldPair> fields = new ArrayList<>(md.params.length); | ||
|
|
||
| int varIndex = 1; | ||
| - for (int i = 0; i < md.params.length; i++) { // no static methods allowed | ||
| + int start = 0; | ||
| + if ((wrapper.getClassStruct().getAccessFlags() & CodeConstants.ACC_ENUM) != 0) { // enums have 2x synthetic params. not handled by normal detection because they go to the superclass constructor rather than to synthetic fields | ||
| + fields.add(new VarFieldPair(NestedClassProcessor.ENUM_SYNTHETIC_SUPER, new VarVersionPair(-1, 0))); | ||
| + fields.add(new VarFieldPair(NestedClassProcessor.ENUM_SYNTHETIC_SUPER, new VarVersionPair(-1, 0))); | ||
| + varIndex += 2; | ||
| + start += 2; | ||
| + } | ||
| + for (int i = start; i < md.params.length; i++) { // no static methods allowed | ||
| String keyField = getEnclosingVarField(cl, method, graph, varIndex); | ||
| fields.add(keyField == null ? null : new VarFieldPair(keyField, new VarVersionPair(-1, 0))); // TODO: null? | ||
| varIndex += md.params[i].stackSize; | ||
| @@ -819,17 +816,31 @@ public class NestedClassProcessor { | ||
| return fd.getName().contains("$") && fd.hasModifier(CodeConstants.ACC_FINAL) && fd.hasModifier(CodeConstants.ACC_PRIVATE); | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| + /** | ||
| + * Merge two sets of method signatures. | ||
| + * | ||
| + * This ensures that synthetic parameters are properly captured when field writes may go through another constructor. | ||
| + * | ||
| + * @param first the list to modify | ||
| + * @param second the list compared against | ||
| + * @param both if the comparison list should also be modified to align | ||
| + */ | ||
| private static void mergeListSignatures(List<VarFieldPair> first, List<VarFieldPair> second, boolean both) { | ||
| - int i = 1; | ||
| + // Upstream this merges from the end of the list forwards | ||
| + // However, synthetic parameters are added at the beginnings of method signatures (at least usually) | ||
| + // so we really want to start from the beginning | ||
| + // if it ends up that this assumption is not true, we'd have to do some sort of fuzzy matching here, or earlier | ||
| + // on traverse multiple steps in the graph in getEnclosingVarField | ||
|
There was a problem hiding this comment. As discussed in Discord, this assumption is incorrect. |
||
| + int i = 0; | ||
|
|
||
| - while (first.size() > i && second.size() > i) { | ||
| - VarFieldPair fObj = first.get(first.size() - i); | ||
| - VarFieldPair sObj = second.get(second.size() - i); | ||
| + while (i < first.size() && i < second.size()) { | ||
| + VarFieldPair fObj = first.get(i); | ||
| + VarFieldPair sObj = second.get(i); | ||
|
|
||
| if (!isEqual(both, fObj, sObj)) { | ||
| - first.set(first.size() - i, null); | ||
| + first.set(i, null); | ||
| if (both) { | ||
| - second.set(second.size() - i, null); | ||
| + second.set(i, null); | ||
| } | ||
| } | ||
| else if (fObj != null) { | ||
| @@ -844,44 +855,15 @@ public class NestedClassProcessor { | ||
| i++; | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| - for (int j = 1; j <= first.size() - i; j++) { | ||
| + for (int j = i; j < first.size(); j++) { | ||
| first.set(j, null); | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| if (both) { | ||
| - for (int j = 1; j <= second.size() - i; j++) { | ||
| + for (int j = i; j < second.size(); j++) { | ||
| second.set(j, null); | ||
| } | ||
| } | ||
| - | ||
| - // first | ||
| - if (first.isEmpty()) { | ||
| - if (!second.isEmpty() && both) { | ||
| - second.set(0, null); | ||
| - } | ||
| - } | ||
| - else if (second.isEmpty()) { | ||
| - first.set(0, null); | ||
| - } | ||
| - else { | ||
| - VarFieldPair fObj = first.get(0); | ||
| - VarFieldPair sObj = second.get(0); | ||
| - | ||
| - if (!isEqual(both, fObj, sObj)) { | ||
| - first.set(0, null); | ||
| - if (both) { | ||
| - second.set(0, null); | ||
| - } | ||
| - } | ||
| - else if (fObj != null) { | ||
| - if (fObj.varPair.var == -1) { | ||
| - fObj.varPair = sObj.varPair; | ||
| - } | ||
| - else { | ||
| - sObj.varPair = fObj.varPair; | ||
| - } | ||
| - } | ||
| - } | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| private static boolean isEqual(boolean both, VarFieldPair fObj, VarFieldPair sObj) { | ||
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Huh.. wonder how this ever worked. Also probably need to change isNew to isGenNew a few lines above where the mask is set so that we can make sure desc.getSignature is not null. Err.. nevermind its inside a desc.getSignature() != null if. But that should probably be changed for proper fix.