Re: error: 'jvariant::jvariant(jbyte)' cannot be overloaded

[Mathieu Malaterre <mathieu dot malaterre at gmail dot com>]

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 ?

Thanks,
-- 
Mathieu