Untimed resolve ?

[Martin Vechev]

Yes, I agree, that is what the specification says. I was just thinking
that resolving everything in the constant pool at link stage is not optimal
since the entry might never be used.

Martin.

At 15:50 30.12.2002 'ã.'Conve -0700, you wrote:
> >>>>> "Martin" == Martin Vechev <martin@fadata.bg> writes:
>
>Martin>                 System.out.println("loaded.");
>Martin>                 new X();
>
>Martin> At the end of loading the X class it also resolves it, which
>Martin> seems incorrect. Shouldn't it rich the actual 'new' bytecode
>Martin> and then throw NoClassDefFoundError.
>
>I don't think this is a requirement.
>See JVMS 1st Ed, section 2.16.1:
>
>     Linking involves verification, preparation, and (optionally)
>     resolution.
>
>Later in that section it discusses the possibility of lazily-resolving
>and eagerly-resolving runtimes.
>
>At this point I don't think there is a bug here, just a difference.  I
>believe code relying on one particular implementation here is not
>well-defined.
>
>Tom