From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 4957 invoked by alias); 31 Jan 2002 10:06:01 -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 4943 invoked by uid 71); 31 Jan 2002 10:06:00 -0000 Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2002 02:06:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20020131100600.4941.qmail@sources.redhat.com> To: nobody@gcc.gnu.org Cc: gcc-prs@gcc.gnu.org, From: Daniel Bonniot Subject: Re: java/5537: Error compiling simple bytecode with jsr Reply-To: Daniel Bonniot X-SW-Source: 2002-01/txt/msg01074.txt.bz2 List-Id: The following reply was made to PR java/5537; it has been noted by GNATS. From: Daniel Bonniot To: tromey@redhat.com Cc: gcc-gnats@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: java/5537: Error compiling simple bytecode with jsr Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2002 10:56:09 +0100 Tom Tromey wrote: > > I've looked at this. gcj still rejects the bytecode in this PR. I > think it does so incorrectly; the bytecode looks fine to me and both > `java' and `gij' pass it. > > How did you generate the bytecode? The bytecode is the output of Sun/Blackdown javac 1.3.1 on the given A.java The error was first found with my own compiler (http://nice.sf.net) that generates java bytecode and now optionally calls gcj on the ouput. > If you did so with gcj, note that > gcj 3.1 no longer generates the same bytecode. Now the method is > simply `return'. I suppose this is only an optim due to the fact that the finally block is empty. I tried to find the smallest case that triggers the problem. I have gcj 3.0.3 and it works fine on the source. I haven't tried to make it produce bytecode. > This doesn't affect the fact that this is a gcj bug. Right.