Re: PR java/27025: ICE on simple initializer

[Andrew Haley <aph at redhat dot com>]

Andrew Haley writes:
 > David Daney writes:
 >  > Andrew Haley wrote:
 >  > > gcj assumes that in the operation (A + B), where A and B are
 >  > > constants, the result must be a constant.  It ain't necessaarily so.
 >  > 
 >  > Can you tell my how to reconcile your claim with JLS (v2 or v3) section 
 >  > 15.28?  Especially in relation to the testcase in the PR.
 > 
 > I don't think it's relevant.  Can you think of any place it might be?

Hmm.  Thinking some more, it might be that a Java implementation is
required to compile ("foo"+2) as the string constant "foo2", and the
JLS section you quoted suggests that it is.

Andrew.