Summary: | [1.5][compiler] Access rules don't apply to generic types | ||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Product: | [Eclipse Project] JDT | Reporter: | Matt McCutchen <hashproduct+eclipse> | ||||||
Component: | Core | Assignee: | Maxime Daniel <maxime_daniel> | ||||||
Status: | VERIFIED FIXED | QA Contact: | |||||||
Severity: | normal | ||||||||
Priority: | P3 | ||||||||
Version: | 3.1.1 | ||||||||
Target Milestone: | 3.2 M5 | ||||||||
Hardware: | PC | ||||||||
OS: | Linux | ||||||||
Whiteboard: | |||||||||
Attachments: |
|
Description
Matt McCutchen
2006-01-06 22:08:54 EST
Created attachment 32636 [details]
Patch that fixes the problem by checking restrictions on erased type
Reproduced with v_632, see AccessRestrictionsTests#test006. Created attachment 32973 [details]
New patch includes fields and methods access detection and further tests.
Test cases:
- BatchCompilerTest 39
- AccessRestrictionsTests 6-10.
Verification: see initial post. Pls backport fix to 3.1 maintenance stream. Maxime: Also add corresponding entry for legal tracking: Name: Matt McCutchen Company: Email: hashproduct@verizon.net Business Address: Business Phone: Contribution: provided part of patch for bug https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=122995 ([1.5][compiler] Access rules don't apply to generic types) Title/Rights: EPL 1.0 in R3_1_maintenace version of the contributions file. Do you really think I would sue for ten bytes? :) Backported into branch R3_1_maintenance. Note that 76266 is not backported, hence only types are involved (neither fields nor methods). I just remembered a related bug: References to generic types are also overlooked by the Plugin Manifest Editor's "Find unused dependencies" feature, which could lead a user to remove a plugin from the dependency list when a generic type from that plugin is actually being used. I noticed this together with the access rule bug and just reproduced it using the same Eclipse as before: version 3.1.1, build id M20050929-0840. Does the existing patch fix this problem? I am still having trouble running the CVS version of Eclipse, so I have no way to tell. (In reply to comment #9) > Does the existing patch fix this problem? I am still having trouble running > the CVS version of Eclipse, so I have no way to tell. No, I could reproduce it with HEAD (as of yesterday night). Please file a separate bug or let me know if you want me to do it. I filed bug 124489 against the PDE for the misbehavior of "Find unused dependencies". I thought the problem might be related to an underlying deficiency in Java search for references, in which case I would have filed it against the JDT, but this doesn't seem to be the case. Verified for 3.2 M5 using build I20060214-0010 |