This is the mail archive of the
java@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the Java project.
Re: error: 'jvariant::jvariant(jbyte)' cannot be overloaded
On 07/21/2009 08:16 AM, Mathieu Malaterre wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 19, 2009 at 5:16 PM, Andrew Haley<aph@redhat.com> wrote:
>> On 07/19/2009 09:17 AM, Florian Weimer wrote:
>>> * Andrew Haley:
>>>
>>>> On 07/19/2009 07:02 AM, Florian Weimer wrote:
>>>>> * Mathieu Malaterre:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I am trying to compile VTK using gcj and I am getting those compiler
>>>>>> error, could someone please let me know if the code is legal (should
>>>>>> compile) or not:
>>>>> This is legal per Sun's JNI specficiation: jboolean and jbyte are
>>>>> distinct types because there signedness differs:
>>>>>
>>>>> <http://java.sun.com/javase/6/docs/technotes/guides/jni/spec/types.html#wp198>
>>>>>
>>>>> It's a bug in GCC.
>>>> I didn't see the original message to which this is replying.
>>> It's about C++ code which contains a function overloaded on jbyte and
>>> jboolean. This fails with GCJ because they are typedef'ed to the same
>>> type.
>>>
>>>> If you can make a test case I'll see if the bug can be fixed.
>>> Compare the table I referenced with these pieces from jni_md.h:
>>>
>>> | typedef int jbyte __attribute__((__mode__(__QI__)));
>>> | typedef int jshort __attribute__((__mode__(__HI__)));
>>> | typedef int jint __attribute__((__mode__(__SI__)));
>>> | typedef int jlong __attribute__((__mode__(__DI__)));
>>> | typedef int jboolean __attribute__((__mode__(__QI__)));
>>> | typedef unsigned short jchar __attribute__((__mode__(__HI__)));
>>> | typedef float jfloat;
>>> | typedef double jdouble;
>>> | typedef jint jsize;
>>>
>>> | typedef int8_t jbyte;
>>> | typedef int16_t jshort;
>>> | typedef int32_t jint;
>>> | typedef int64_t jlong;
>>> | typedef float jfloat;
>>> | typedef double jdouble;
>>> | typedef jint jsize;
>>> | typedef int8_t jboolean;
>>> | typedef uint16_t jchar;
>>>
>>> jboolean is signed, but Sun's spec says it should be unsigned.
>> OK. I can fix it, but it's an ABI-incompatible change. There's no
>> way this fix could be applied to any existing releases, only gcc
>> 4.5.
>
> Excellent ! Is there a bug entry so I can follow the process ?
Not until you make one.
Andrew.