This is the mail archive of the java@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the Java project.

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format:	[Raw text]

Re: Class.h and Class.java both define zero-arg constructor

From: Tom Tromey <tromey at redhat dot com>
To: Bryce McKinlay <bryce at waitaki dot otago dot ac dot nz>
Cc: Adam Megacz <gcj at lists dot megacz dot com>, java at gcc dot gnu dot org
Date: 16 Dec 2001 15:40:31 -0700
Subject: Re: Class.h and Class.java both define zero-arg constructor
References: <86wuzuo7g5.fsf@megacz.com> <87heqr37ih.fsf@creche.redhat.com> <3C1C59E3.8060302@waitaki.otago.ac.nz>
Reply-to: tromey at redhat dot com

>> However, at the same time if I turn the constructor in Class.h into a
>> declaration, the vtable ends up wrong.  I don't understand why :-(.

Bryce> Because Java constructors don't set the vtable at all? We do
Bryce> that in _Jv_AllocObj. So the fix is to set the vtable manually,
Bryce> but not do the "wind it back" hack?

Yeah, I forgot about that.  This fix works, and I'm checking it in.
Thanks.

Tom

References:
- Class.h and Class.java both define zero-arg constructor
  - From: Adam Megacz
- Re: Class.h and Class.java both define zero-arg constructor
  - From: Tom Tromey
- Re: Class.h and Class.java both define zero-arg constructor
  - From: Bryce McKinlay

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]