Re: Bug 9861 and Java 5 Generics

[Andrew Haley <aph at redhat dot com>]

Tom Tromey writes:
 > Per> Hm.  If someone "manually" generates a .class containing two methods
 > Per> 'int foo()' and 'double foo()' and also contains calls to those methods,
 > Per> is that something we should support?  I'd have to look carefully in
 > Per> the vm spec to see what it says, and also see what jdk does.  But
 > Per> even if it turns out to a technically valid classfile, it's clearly
 > Per> not important to support it.
 > 
 > I believe it is valid to have this in a .class file.

Yes.  IMO we should consider this for 4.1.  As this won't break
anything already compiled for the BC ABI and we don't have
release-to-release binary compatibility for non-BC code, this is a
harmless change.  The only real argument I can see is exactly what
mangling format to use.

Andrew.