From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 1569 invoked by alias); 27 Nov 2001 02:46:10 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-prs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-prs-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 1535 invoked by uid 71); 27 Nov 2001 02:46:02 -0000 Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2001 02:53:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20011127024602.1534.qmail@sourceware.cygnus.com> To: apbianco@gcc.gnu.org Cc: gcc-prs@gcc.gnu.org, From: Alexandre Petit-Bianco Subject: Re: java/4775 Reply-To: Alexandre Petit-Bianco X-SW-Source: 2001-11/txt/msg00637.txt.bz2 List-Id: The following reply was made to PR java/4775; it has been noted by GNATS. From: Alexandre Petit-Bianco To: Bryce McKinlay Cc: apbianco@gcc.gnu.org, gcc-gnats@gcc.gnu.org, mlhartme@mlhartme.de, gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: java/4775 Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2001 18:44:19 -0800 (PST) Bryce McKinlay writes: > I'm curious why the second part of this patch is neccessary Last time I checked (some time ago, I'd have to re-check,) proper finals initialization is carried out by checking that at least a ctor in the chain of call will initialize a final properly. So it's faster and prevents things from breaking when regular non static methods are being found invoked in ctor bodies... ./A