From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 6906 invoked by alias); 2 Mar 2002 19:06:01 -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 6887 invoked by uid 71); 2 Mar 2002 19:06:00 -0000 Date: Sat, 02 Mar 2002 11:06:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20020302190600.6886.qmail@sources.redhat.com> To: nobody@gcc.gnu.org Cc: gcc-prs@gcc.gnu.org, From: Per Bothner Subject: Re: java/5812: GCJ 3.0.2 segfaults on class file from Sun JDK 1.3 compiler Reply-To: Per Bothner X-SW-Source: 2002-03/txt/msg00036.txt.bz2 List-Id: The following reply was made to PR java/5812; it has been noted by GNATS. From: Per Bothner To: tromey@redhat.com Cc: adam@medovina.org, gcc-gnats@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: java/5812: GCJ 3.0.2 segfaults on class file from Sun JDK 1.3 compiler Date: Sat, 02 Mar 2002 10:56:45 -0800 Tom Tromey wrote: > It isn't clear to me whether this should verify. > The `return' at PC=15 is invalid, since the method signature is ()I. > Ordinarily this would be a verification error. I agree. > However, given that Sun's compiler generated this, perhaps they intend > that we only verify reachable code. Who knows what the by intended - but we have to live with their bugs. > Per, what do you think about this? Gcj already emits an 'unreachable bytecode' warning. I think that would be enough, once we fix whather is causing gcj to crash. I'll take a look. -- --Per Bothner per@bothner.com http://www.bothner.com/per/