Bugzilla – Full Text Bug Listing
| Summary: | [quick fix] When extending a class that uses strictfp the automatically generated constructor has strictfp in the name. | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | [Eclipse Project] JDT | Reporter: | Ryan Henszey <henszey> |
| Component: | UI | Assignee: | JDT-UI-Inbox <jdt-ui-inbox> |
| Status: | CLOSED WONTFIX | QA Contact: | |
| Severity: | trivial | ||
| Priority: | P3 | CC: | henszey, Olivier_Thomann |
| Version: | 3.2.2 | ||
| Target Milestone: | --- | ||
| Hardware: | PC | ||
| OS: | Linux | ||
| Whiteboard: | stalebug | ||
Move to JDT/UI package e1;
public abstract strictfp class R {
public R(int i) {
}
}
class SubOfR extends R {
}
Interesting. The constructor binding of R(int) has the modifier 'strictfp' set, but 'strictfp' is not a valid modifier in a source file.
Just to makes sure, question to jdt.core: Olivier, is that how it has to be?
Yes. The strictfp flag is set on all methods, but it is not set for the type itself. This bug hasn't had any activity in quite some time. Maybe the problem got resolved, was a duplicate of something else, or became less pressing for some reason - or maybe it's still relevant but just hasn't been looked at yet. If you have further information on the current state of the bug, please add it. The information can be, for example, that the problem still occurs, that you still want the feature, that more information is needed, or that the bug is (for whatever reason) no longer relevant. -- The automated Eclipse Genie. |
Build ID: M20070212-1330 Steps To Reproduce: 1. Create a class with this signature: public abstract strictfp class Thing 2. Add a constructor to Thing that requires an argument. 3. Create a class called BigThing that extends Thing with no contructor. 4. There should be an error that you need an explicit constructor, use the suggested fix of "Add constructor 'BigThing(arg)'" This creates a constructor for BigThing that looks like this: public strictfp BigThing(int i) { super(i); // TODO Auto-generated constructor stub } More information: I consider this a super trivial bug...