public inbox for java-prs@sourceware.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
* [Bug java/22377] BC compilation fails to detect abstract instantiation
[not found] <bug-22377-360@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
@ 2006-02-07 18:43 ` tromey at gcc dot gnu dot org
2006-03-07 15:16 ` tromey at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (2 subsequent siblings)
3 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: tromey at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2006-02-07 18:43 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: java-prs
------- Comment #3 from tromey at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-02-07 18:43 -------
Andrew pointed out on irc that we could also implement this by
installing a pointer to a "constructor" which would simply throw
the appropriate exception.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22377
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* [Bug java/22377] BC compilation fails to detect abstract instantiation
[not found] <bug-22377-360@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
2006-02-07 18:43 ` [Bug java/22377] BC compilation fails to detect abstract instantiation tromey at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2006-03-07 15:16 ` tromey at gcc dot gnu dot org
2009-02-16 9:23 ` bonzini at gnu dot org
2009-02-22 17:04 ` tromey at gcc dot gnu dot org
3 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: tromey at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2006-03-07 15:16 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: java-prs
------- Comment #4 from tromey at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-03-07 15:16 -------
Now I think the idea in comment #3 is incorrect.
I looked at implementing it today, and I realized that
it will also cause a super() constructor call to
throw an exception.
The idea in comment #1 may still work. I'd prefer something
more direct however.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22377
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* [Bug java/22377] BC compilation fails to detect abstract instantiation
[not found] <bug-22377-360@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
2006-02-07 18:43 ` [Bug java/22377] BC compilation fails to detect abstract instantiation tromey at gcc dot gnu dot org
2006-03-07 15:16 ` tromey at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2009-02-16 9:23 ` bonzini at gnu dot org
2009-02-22 17:04 ` tromey at gcc dot gnu dot org
3 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: bonzini at gnu dot org @ 2009-02-16 9:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: java-prs
------- Comment #5 from bonzini at gnu dot org 2009-02-16 09:23 -------
Just came here by chance :-)
You can check "if (this.class == ...)" in the constructor. It will slow down
constructors for subclasses though.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22377
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* [Bug java/22377] BC compilation fails to detect abstract instantiation
[not found] <bug-22377-360@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
` (2 preceding siblings ...)
2009-02-16 9:23 ` bonzini at gnu dot org
@ 2009-02-22 17:04 ` tromey at gcc dot gnu dot org
3 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: tromey at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2009-02-22 17:04 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: java-prs
------- Comment #6 from tromey at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-02-22 17:04 -------
I'm not sure that suggestion will work.
My recollection is that the order of checks is specified,
and that allocating memory before the abstract-ness check
would be incorrect.
I didn't confirm this with the spec though.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22377
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* [Bug java/22377] BC compilation fails to detect abstract instantiation
2005-07-08 19:08 [Bug java/22377] New: " tromey at gcc dot gnu dot org
2005-07-11 15:44 ` [Bug java/22377] " mckinlay at redhat dot com
@ 2005-07-11 16:26 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
1 sibling, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2005-07-11 16:26 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: java-prs
------- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-11 16:26 -------
Confirmed.
--
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever Confirmed| |1
Last reconfirmed|0000-00-00 00:00:00 |2005-07-11 16:26:46
date| |
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22377
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* [Bug java/22377] BC compilation fails to detect abstract instantiation
2005-07-08 19:08 [Bug java/22377] New: " tromey at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2005-07-11 15:44 ` mckinlay at redhat dot com
2005-07-11 16:26 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
1 sibling, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: mckinlay at redhat dot com @ 2005-07-11 15:44 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: java-prs
------- Additional Comments From mckinlay at redhat dot com 2005-07-11 15:44 -------
There might be a way to implement this without additional _Jv_AllocObject cost
and without adding new ABI tables.
If abstract classes and interfaces were given a zero or negative value in their
size field, I think the GC will call GC_oom_fn if an attempt were made to
allocate them. We could then throw InstantiationException instead of
OutOfMemoryError in this case.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22377
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2009-02-22 17:04 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
[not found] <bug-22377-360@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
2006-02-07 18:43 ` [Bug java/22377] BC compilation fails to detect abstract instantiation tromey at gcc dot gnu dot org
2006-03-07 15:16 ` tromey at gcc dot gnu dot org
2009-02-16 9:23 ` bonzini at gnu dot org
2009-02-22 17:04 ` tromey at gcc dot gnu dot org
2005-07-08 19:08 [Bug java/22377] New: " tromey at gcc dot gnu dot org
2005-07-11 15:44 ` [Bug java/22377] " mckinlay at redhat dot com
2005-07-11 16:26 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).