Re: Note on BC and type assertions

[Bryce McKinlay <mckinlay at redhat dot com>]

Tom Tromey wrote:

> Tom> While browsing the verifier again, I noticed that there is a dynamic
> Tom> constraint that we can't represent using our current type
> Tom> assertions, namely:
>
> Tom> 	    if (type_isarray (&t) || type_isinterface (&t) \
> Tom> 		|| type_isabstract (&t))
> Tom> 	      verify_fail ("type is array, interface, or abstract");
>
> If we want to fully support the "gcj never fails" approach, then we
> have to support cases like this.  For instance, it is an error to use
> invokestatic on a non-static method.  This has to be reverified at
> runtime.
>  

For the BC-ABI this is already verified when linking the otable/atable. 
There is no need for a separate assertion entry.

Regards

Bryce