Hello,
I was concerned about the special cases handling in javac might be
problematic and made sure to do a build before I pushed the change.
Since pushing the change yesterday, all the internal builds have been
fine so I think we are in the clear :-)
Thanks,
-Joe
On 1/30/2015 11:58 AM, Joel Borggrén-Franck wrote:
Hi
Good question, but javac should be fine. I had to look it up, but there is
logic to omit super() when generating the default ctor for Object
(TypeEnter::DefaultConstructor), and also logic for omitting super() if we are
compiling an explicit ctor for Object (Attr::visitMethodDef).
Looks good Joe, perhaps you could do a boot-cycle build just to be on the safe
side?
cheers
/Joel
.
On 30 jan 2015, at 15:52, Peter Levart <peter.lev...@gmail.com> wrote:
On 01/30/2015 01:02 AM, joe darcy wrote:
Hello,
Please review the patch below to fix
JDK-8071959: java.lang.Object uses implicit default constructor
diff -r 458adf31ad5b src/java.base/share/classes/java/lang/Object.java
--- a/src/java.base/share/classes/java/lang/Object.java Thu Jan 29 15:14:44
2015 -0800
+++ b/src/java.base/share/classes/java/lang/Object.java Thu Jan 29 16:00:03
2015 -0800
@@ -42,6 +42,11 @@
}
/**
+ * Constructs a new object.
+ */
+ public Object() {}
+
+ /**
* Returns the runtime class of this {@code Object}. The returned
* {@code Class} object is the object that is locked by {@code
* static synchronized} methods of the represented class.
At present, java.lang.Object relies on the default constructor generated by
javac; how embarrassing!
Thanks,
-Joe
Is javac able to compile it correctly? It never had to do that before (it
inserted an implicit one instead). I guess the constructor in Object is
special, since it does not call a super constructor.
Peter
