Patch: FYI: fix signatures of anonymous class constructors

[Tom Tromey]

I'm checking this in on the 4.0 branch, the 4.1 branch, and the trunk.

This fixes a bug reported to the Red Hat bugzilla.  The test case is
included below.  The bug is that we can end up with invalid
constructor signatures in some cases.

I looked at a couple other approaches, but this seemed simplest.

I think this never noticed this before because the old verifier did
check the validity of signatures.

Tom

Index: gcc/java/ChangeLog
from  Tom Tromey  <tromey@redhat.com>

	* parse.y (patch_new_array_init): Don't set length on array.

Index: libjava/ChangeLog
from  Tom Tromey  <tromey@redhat.com>

	* testsuite/libjava.compile/rh174912.java: New file.

Index: gcc/java/parse.y
===================================================================
--- gcc/java/parse.y	(revision 108077)
+++ gcc/java/parse.y	(working copy)
@@ -14857,8 +14857,12 @@
 
   /* Create a new type. We can't reuse the one we have here by
      patching its dimension because it originally is of dimension -1
-     hence reused by gcc. This would prevent triangular arrays. */
-  type = build_java_array_type (element_type, length);
+     hence reused by gcc. This would prevent triangular arrays.
+     Note that we don't pass the length here.  If we do that then the
+     length will end up in the signature of this type, and hence in
+     the signature of the anonymous constructor -- but this is not a
+     valid java signature.  */
+  type = build_java_array_type (element_type, -1);
   TREE_TYPE (init) = TREE_TYPE (TREE_CHAIN (TREE_CHAIN (TYPE_FIELDS (type))));
   TREE_TYPE (node) = promote_type (type);
   TREE_CONSTANT (init) = all_constant;
Index: libjava/testsuite/libjava.compile/rh174912.java
===================================================================
--- libjava/testsuite/libjava.compile/rh174912.java	(revision 0)
+++ libjava/testsuite/libjava.compile/rh174912.java	(revision 0)
@@ -0,0 +1,17 @@
+// Derived from Red Hat bugzilla 174912
+// https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=174912
+// The bug is that the anonymous class constructor here will end up
+// with a bogus '[3C' in its signature.
+
+public class rh174912 {
+  public rh174912(char[][] args) { }
+
+  public Object m() {
+    return new rh174912(new char[][] { "hi".toCharArray(),
+				       "bob".toCharArray(),
+				       "and joe".toCharArray() }) {
+      };
+  }
+
+  public static void main(String[] args) { }
+}