gcj/260: "Klass.class" expression should cause Klass to be initialized

[Bryce McKinlay]

The following reply was made to PR gcj/260; it has been noted by GNATS.

From: Bryce McKinlay <bryce@albatross.co.nz>
To: Jeff Sturm <jsturm@sigma6.com>
Cc: tromey@cygnus.com, apbianco@cygnus.com, java-gnats@sourceware.cygnus.com
Subject: Re: gcj/260: "Klass.class" expression should cause Klass to be 
 initialized
Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2000 11:10:23 +1200

 Jeff Sturm wrote:
 
 > Bryce McKinlay wrote:
 > > Oh, it does. IIRC the spec is pretty clear that Class.forName() will cause
 > > initialization (and JDBC wouldn't work if it didn't).
 >
 > I've never found that anywhere in the JLS... is there a newer copy I
 > don't have?  All I see is that vague explanation about "certain methods
 > in java.lang.Class..."
 
 I was actually thinking of the JDK 1.2/1.3 html docs, where it says:
 
 "A call to forName("X") causes the class named X to be initialized."
 
 In JDK 1.2 there is also an extended version of forName which allows you to
 specifiy whether you want the class to be inititalized or not.
 
 > > If it also says somewhere that ".class" is equivalent to Class.forName(),
 > > then obviously ".class" should initialize as well.
 >
 > I don't know if they are intentionally equivalent, but javac supports
 > the ".class" syntax by generating (indirectly) a call to
 > Class.forName().
 >
 > Now, the PR also says "gij ClassInit" fails the test.  It turns out that
 > libgcj's Class.forName() fails to perform initialization as well.  So
 > the runtime must be patched along with gcj.
 
 Oops, your right. I don't know how I didnt notice this before! But I see Tom
 has checked in a fix for that already. gcj still needs to be fixed as well of
 course, as ".class" is implemented differently.
 
 regards
 
   [ bryce ]