* Impl of IMethod isSynthetic and isWalaSynthetic
So far IMethod.isSynthetic referred to WALA-generated helper functions
and there was no equivalent to check whether an IMethod is synthetic in
terms of compiler-generated.
To make naming consistent this patch first renames the isSynthetic to
isWalaSynthetic to clearly indicate that a given IMethod was generated
by WALA. Then, we re-introduce isSynthetic that from now on checks
whether an IMethod is synthetic/compiler-generated (referring to the
synthetic flag in bytecode)
* Implementation of IClass.isSynthetic
Complementary to IMethod.isSynthetic, this method checks whether
an IClass is compiler-generated.
* updated JavaDoc
Boxing a primitive using the constructor ("new Integer(4)") always
creates a distinct new boxed instance. That's rarely what you need,
and in fact all of those constructors have been deprecated in Java 9.
Using the static "valueOf" method instead ("Integer.valueOf(4)") can
give better performance by reusing existing instances. You no longer
get a unique boxed object, but generally that's OK.
Eclipse's automated code clean-up tool did most of the heavy lifting
here: it specifically has a clean-up option for converting functional
interfaces to lambdas. I merely had to revert the automated changes
for a single enumeration class for which it produced invalid results,
and for a few test inputs that apparently aren't set up to be compiled
with Java 8.
Previously FilterIterator was very permissive regarding the type
relationships between the original iterator, the filtered iterator,
and the predicate used to prune the former down to the latter. Now we
enforce those relationships more strictly, including proper use of
covariant ("<? extends T>") and contravariant ("<? super T>")
polymorphic type parameters where appropriate.
This lets us get rid of seven suppressed warnings about generic types
and/or unchecked conversions. It also moves us toward being able to
use modern Java features like lambdas and streams more easily.
Each of these required careful consideration of what the original
developer *intended* as distinguished from what the developer's code
actually *does*. I believe I got each one right, and WALA's
regression tests agree. A second opinion by a core WALA developer
would be welcome, though.
Achim D. Brucker
Julian Dolby
Erik Derr
Sifis Lagouvardos
Ben Liblit