Bug 160254

Summary:	Regression in 3.2.1 - erroneous error final method overrides
Product:	[Eclipse Project] JDT	Reporter:	R Lenard <rlenard>
Component:	Core	Assignee:	JDT-Core-Inbox <jdt-core-inbox>
Status:	VERIFIED DUPLICATE	QA Contact:
Severity:	critical
Priority:	P3
Version:	3.2.1
Target Milestone:	3.2.2
Hardware:	PC
OS:	Windows XP
Whiteboard:

Description R Lenard

2006-10-09 19:28:46 EDT

I am not getting an error like this for code that previous worked fine / compiled fine.
java.lang.VerifyError: class x.SetUtils$UnmodifiableSetImpl overrides final method &#139;y=,h&#135;,.»&#138;=,h&#135;,
	at java.lang.ClassLoader.defineClass1(Native Method)
	at java.lang.ClassLoader.defineClass(ClassLoader.java:620)
	at java.security.SecureClassLoader.defineClass(SecureClassLoader.java:124)
	at java.net.URLClassLoader.defineClass(URLClassLoader.java:260)
	at java.net.URLClassLoader.access$100(URLClassLoader.java:56)
	at java.net.URLClassLoader$1.run(URLClassLoader.java:195)
...

NOTICE the method name is screwy - suggesting something is mis-compiled..

Comment 1 Olivier Thomann

2006-10-09 20:15:48 EDT

Would you have a test case to reproduce this problem?
What are your compiler settings?
Might be a duplicate of bug 159973.

Comment 2 R Lenard

2006-10-09 20:30:05 EDT

(In reply to comment #1)
> Would you have a test case to reproduce this problem?

It seems to be quite similar to bug 159973.  My hunch when I saw it was it related to interfaces that extended multiple interfaces and implementations that implemented multiple interfaces that had multiple common base interfaces.

> What are your compiler settings?

Compliance 1.5 - default compliance settings.

> Might be a duplicate of bug 159973.

That seems likely - I reran 159973 in 3.2.1 and it gives similar sorts of errors.  The wierd thing is the error message has *really* odd characters in it.

NOTE: This is a regression from 3.2 (it compiled and ran fine then).

Comment 3 Olivier Thomann

2006-10-10 15:21:26 EDT

Could you please provide a test case to reproduce?
Even if it looks like a dup of bug 159973, bug 159973 doesn't have those weird characters.
As soon as we have your test case, we can investigate.
Setting severity as critical since it seems to be a regression.

Comment 4 Olivier Thomann

2006-10-16 11:30:13 EDT

setting as a dup of bug 159973.
Please try the next integration build and let us know if it fixes your problem.
We could also issue a update build for 3.2.2 in the update list of the jdt/core web page.
Let us know what you prefer.
Thanks.

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 159973 ***

Comment 5 R Lenard

2006-10-16 16:04:57 EDT

(In reply to comment #4)
> setting as a dup of bug 159973.
> Please try the next integration build and let us know if it fixes your problem.
> We could also issue a update build for 3.2.2 in the update list of the jdt/core
> web page.
> Let us know what you prefer.
> Thanks.
> *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 159973 ***

Next integration build is 17th right?  If it's relatively simple to deploy that's fine - I can test with it.  It might take me more than a few hours to produce a test case - no point if it is likely fixed.

Comment 6 Olivier Thomann

2006-10-16 16:07:06 EDT

Yes, next integration build is tomorrow.
Let us know if you reproduce your issue with this build.
Thanks.

Comment 7 R Lenard

2006-11-23 14:35:39 EST

(In reply to comment #6)
> Yes, next integration build is tomorrow.
> Let us know if you reproduce your issue with this build.
> Thanks.

Works fine with 3.3M3 - thx.

Comment 8 Maxime Daniel

2007-01-16 03:21:08 EST

Considering it has been verified by the reporter (on the matching level in the HEAD stream).