Summary: | [1.5][compiler] Eclipse 3.2RC4 Doesn't recognize implemented method by abstract class (while 3.1.2 works just fine). | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Product: | [Eclipse Project] JDT | Reporter: | Agustin Barto <m4rgin4l> | ||||
Component: | Core | Assignee: | Kent Johnson <kent_johnson> | ||||
Status: | VERIFIED FIXED | QA Contact: | |||||
Severity: | normal | ||||||
Priority: | P3 | CC: | daniel_megert, darin.eclipse, martinae, Mike_Wilson | ||||
Version: | 3.2 | ||||||
Target Milestone: | 3.2 RC5 | ||||||
Hardware: | PC | ||||||
OS: | Linux | ||||||
Whiteboard: | |||||||
Attachments: |
|
Description
Agustin Barto
2006-05-14 21:19:46 EDT
Reproduced with RC4. Works fine with either JDK1.5.0_07 or JDK60b82. Given it is a regression, we may consider for 3.2RC5 if we have a good fix. This remains a corner situation, and could rather qualify for 3.2.1. Created attachment 41463 [details]
Patch
Only need to choose the interface method if its a better match than the concrete method. This is the second case in findMethod() when we're faced with the same issue.
+1 for 3.2RC5. Current behavior is a regression over 3.1, introduced in 3.2RC2. Fix looks good, one omission of a code pattern. Martin - pls cast your vote Dani - pls cast your vote. Looked at the patch and talked to Philippe about the potential risk. Approving for 3.2 RC5 since it is a regression and rejects valid code. Re: comment 6 1) Is this really a critical stop ship defect? It is a recent regression we introduced by mistake, and we have a good/simple fix for it (broken since RC2). We reject valid code. It was discovered in about 2 weeks... 2) What is the potential risk for existing (3.2) clients that now use/rely on Since we reject valid code, there is no impact on existing clients which are broken if they see it. Mike - pls cast your vote I don't have enough context to be able to verify the code, but it seems like something that would be good to fix. +1 Added VarargsTest #49 and released into HEAD for RC5 Darin - would you vote for this bug ? (cannot find Martin any longer) +1 for 3.2RC5 +1 Verified with I20060519-0010 for 3.2RC5 |