This is the mail archive of the
java@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the Java project.
Re: libgcj verifier handling of uninitialized types
- From: Tom Tromey <tromey at redhat dot com>
- To: Per Bothner <per at bothner dot com>
- Cc: java at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: 15 Jan 2002 17:00:09 -0700
- Subject: Re: libgcj verifier handling of uninitialized types
- References: <3C44A6C0.5050008@bothner.com>
- Reply-to: tromey at redhat dot com
>>>>> "Per" == Per Bothner <per@bothner.com> writes:
Per> // An initialized type and an uninitialized type are not
Per> // compatible.
Per> if (isinitialized () != k.isinitialized ())
Per> return false;
Per> Is this really correct? Even if one of them is an interface?
A couple of the names in `enum type_val' are poorly chosen.
`initialized' in this context refers to the result of a `new' which
has had <init> invoked on it.
I think this check is correct, because in general we want to reject
uses of uninitialized objects. We explicitly check for them in those
cases where they are valid (<init> invocation and putfield).
Tom