PR java/27025: ICE on simple initializer
Tue Apr 4 17:40:00 GMT 2006
Andrew Haley wrote:
> David Daney writes:
> > Andrew Haley wrote:
> > > gcj assumes that in the operation (A + B), where A and B are
> > > constants, the result must be a constant. It ain't necessaarily so.
> > Can you tell my how to reconcile your claim with JLS (v2 or v3) section
> > 15.28? Especially in relation to the testcase in the PR.
> I don't think it's relevant. Can you think of any place it might be?
In line 4 of the testcase the JLS requires that FULL_NAME be "A
compile-time constant expression"
In this case A + B + C where A, B and C are all constants, is required
to be a constant.
Does this have any relevance with respect to the patch? I have no idea.
I will be quiet now.
More information about the Gcc-patches