PR java/27025: ICE on simple initializer

David Daney
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.

David Daney

More information about the Gcc-patches mailing list