> In the `class` file format, a lot of the values are `u1` or `u2`; the
> Class-File API consistently model them with `int`. However, the API does not,
> in general, validate that int values passed to the factory methods are not
> out of the bounds as defined in the class file format. This patch
> In the `class` file format, a lot of the values are `u1` or `u2`; the
> Class-File API consistently model them with `int`. However, the API does not,
> in general, validate that int values passed to the factory methods are not
> out of the bounds as defined in the class file format. This patch
On Tue, 8 Jul 2025 20:28:23 GMT, Chen Liang wrote:
>> In the `class` file format, a lot of the values are `u1` or `u2`; the
>> Class-File API consistently model them with `int`. However, the API does
>> not, in general, validate that int values passed to the factory methods are
>> not out of t
> In the `class` file format, a lot of the values are `u1` or `u2`; the
> Class-File API consistently model them with `int`. However, the API does not,
> in general, validate that int values passed to the factory methods are not
> out of the bounds as defined in the class file format. This patch
In the `class` file format, a lot of the values are `u1` or `u2`; the
Class-File API consistently model them with `int`. However, the API does not,
in general, validate that int values passed to the factory methods are not out
of the bounds as defined in the class file format. This patch propose
