Bug 9861 and Java 5 Generics

[Daniel Bonniot]

Tom Tromey wrote:
> Per> Hm.  If someone "manually" generates a .class containing two methods
> Per> 'int foo()' and 'double foo()' and also contains calls to those methods,
> Per> is that something we should support?  I'd have to look carefully in
> Per> the vm spec to see what it says, and also see what jdk does.  But
> Per> even if it turns out to a technically valid classfile, it's clearly
> Per> not important to support it.
> 
> I believe it is valid to have this in a .class file.
> 
> I think it is probably not important to support this for CNI.  But, it
> is important that we be able to correctly compile and execute this
> code.  ISTR that code like this can be generated by the 'nice'
> compiler (I've CCd the author for his comments).

Thanks. I agree this is valid bytecode, and I hope gcj will be able to support it.

This is a very similar issue to the bug I reported about fields with the same 
name and different types (bug 20215). That one is already fixed in gij, but 
not in gcj.

Daniel

PS: FWIW, at the moment, Nice is only affected by the case with fields, not 
methods.