[Bug java/24938] New: gcj -C miscompiles gnu/CORBA/DynAn/gnuDynValue.java

["mark at gcc dot gnu dot org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>]

There are two pieces of code in gnuDynValue that generate unverifiable (and
wrong!) code.

The following method in this file:

  public int component_count()
  {
    return isNull ? 0 : super.component_count();
  }

Generates the following byte code:

Method name:"component_count" public Signature: ()int
Attribute "Code", length:38, max_stack:2, max_locals:1, code_length:14
  0: aload_0
  1: getfield <Field gnu.CORBA.DynAn.gnuDynValue.isNull boolean>
  4: ifeq 9
  7: iconst_0
  8: ireturn
  9: aload_0
 10: invokespecial <InterfaceMethod org.omg.DynamicAny.DynAny.component_count
()int>
 13: ireturn
Attribute "LineNumberTable", length:6, count: 1
  line: 369 at pc: 0

PC 10 is wrong. And the verifier actually catches that:

gnu/CORBA/DynAn/gnuDynValue.java: In class 'gnu.CORBA.DynAn.gnuDynValue':
gnu/CORBA/DynAn/gnuDynValue.java: In method
'gnu.CORBA.DynAn.gnuDynValue.component_count()':
gnu/CORBA/DynAn/gnuDynValue.java:369: error: verification failed at PC=10:
didn't see expected constant

Another method in this file that exhibits this is:

  public boolean equal(DynAny other)
  {
    if (other instanceof DynValueOperations)
      {
        DynValueCommon o = (DynValueCommon) other;
        if (isNull)
          return o.is_null() && o.type().equal(official_type);
        else
          return !o.is_null() && super.equal(other);
      }
    else
      return false;
  }

That last super.equal() call generates the same wrong code.

This might be an existing bug, but I couldn't quickly find it.
I have a workaround for this issue that I want to get in before reducing this.


-- 
           Summary: gcj -C miscompiles gnu/CORBA/DynAn/gnuDynValue.java
           Product: gcc
           Version: 4.1.0
            Status: UNCONFIRMED
          Keywords: wrong-code
          Severity: normal
          Priority: P3
         Component: java
        AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
        ReportedBy: mark at gcc dot gnu dot org


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24938