Re: PATCH: java: suppress java.lang.Object constructor

[Alexandre Oliva <aoliva at redhat dot com>]

On Jul 17, 2001, Alexandre Petit-Bianco <apbianco@cygnus.com> wrote:

> Tom Tromey <tromey@redhat.com> writes:
>> Is it hard to do this in a general way?
>> If the superclass is derived from Object and it doesn't need a
>> constructor, then eliminate more calls?  (i.e., work recursively)

> That's a good idea.

But what if the base class is then modified such that the constructor
is no longer a do-nothing?  Wouldn't it be reasonable for one to
expect not to have to recompile the derived class?

-- 
Alexandre Oliva   Enjoy Guarana', see http://www.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
Red Hat GCC Developer                  aoliva@{cygnus.com, redhat.com}
CS PhD student at IC-Unicamp        oliva@{lsd.ic.unicamp.br, gnu.org}
Free Software Evangelist    *Please* write to mailing lists, not to me