Community
Participate
Working Groups
Build Identifier: I20101028-1441 Section 8.4.8.4 of JLS 3 says (see bullet 1) that the following example should compile but it don't compile. Reproducible: Always Steps to Reproduce: Try to compile that code: abstract class C<T> { public abstract Object foo(T x); public Integer foo(String x){ return 1; } public void bar(T x){ System.out.println(foo(x)); } } class E extends C<String> { public static void main(String args[]) { new E().bar(null); } }
Srikanth, please investigate. javac 1.6 and 1.7 compile this code.
See that eclipse compiles this alright: abstract class C<T> { public abstract Object foo(T x); public void bar(T x){ System.out.println(foo(x)); } } public class X extends C<String> { public Integer foo(String x){ return 1; } public static void main(String args[]) { new X().bar(null); } } Also this variation: abstract class B<T> { public abstract Object foo(T x); } abstract class C<T> extends B<T> { public Object foo(String x){ return 1; } public void bar(T x){ System.out.println(foo(x)); } } public class X extends C<String> { public static void main(String args[]) { new X().bar(null); } }
Eclipse also silently compiles this code while javac correctly complains: abstract class B <T> { public abstract String foo(T x); } abstract class C<T> extends B<T> { public Object foo(String x){ return 1; } } public class X extends C<String> { }
Created attachment 189088 [details] Patch under test
Comment on attachment 189088 [details] Patch under test This patch fails some cases, back to debug.
This is a little bit more involved than my initial assessment. I'll continue to look at it as time permits, but this may not be before M6.
See bug 346029 comment 6
Created attachment 196288 [details] Patch under consideration
Passes all tests, Satyam, please review - TIA.
Srikanth, Code in comment 3 still gets compiled with this patch silenty. Is this being addressed in a different bug?
(In reply to comment #10) > Srikanth, > Code in comment 3 still gets compiled with this patch silenty. Is this being > addressed in a different bug? OOps.. sorry! I was using wrong patch! I am getting the error.
The patch looks good to me.
As this is too late for 3.7, I have released this fix only in BETA_JAVA7 branch.
Verified using patch feature 1.0.0-20110623-0900. Just a minor nagging regarding the tests: I was confused by not finding a new *positive* test, although the original issue is about "should compile". Is there a specific rationale behind adding the unresolvable field zork, or is that just a pseudo-random deviation to increase test coverage?
(In reply to comment #14) > Is there a specific rationale behind adding the unresolvable field zork, > or is that just a pseudo-random deviation to increase test coverage? No, it is just the result of copy/paste - since the error that is the subject of this bug doesn't show up anymore as verified by the test, it was left at that.
