Re: PR libgcj/25265 second part: Throw NoSuchFieldError for missing fields

[Tom Tromey <tromey at redhat dot com>]

>>>>> "Andrew" == Andrew Haley <aph@redhat.com> writes:

Andrew> That's a really good point!  Maybe with a bit of thought the runtime
Andrew> test could be removed for that first case, because the inner class
Andrew> will be compiled and resolved with its enclosing class, so accesses to
Andrew> outer fields should always be OK.  That's perhaps worth doing.

I think the case to worry about is when an attacker modifies an outer
class but leaves the inner class the same.  In this situation the
compiled inner class could read/write non-existent fields.

Tom