Bug 26195

Summary:	JDT compiler doesn't report recursive constructor invocation
Product:	[Eclipse Project] JDT	Reporter:	Craig Miskell <cmiskell>
Component:	Core	Assignee:	Philipe Mulet <philippe_mulet>
Status:	VERIFIED FIXED	QA Contact:
Severity:	normal
Priority:	P3
Version:	2.0.1
Target Milestone:	2.1 M4
Hardware:	PC
OS:	Linux-GTK
Whiteboard:

Description Craig Miskell

2002-11-13 15:42:40 EST

The JDT doesn't report a recursive constructor invocation, whereas javac does. 
I'm couldn't find any reference in the java language specs saying such a
definition is truly illegal, but it's clearly not a good thing to do.  I think
that JDT should report it as an error (it's never going to work :-))

Comment 1 Philipe Mulet

2002-11-14 05:43:20 EST

We have to report these errors. 
On following test case, I get 2 errors:

Kind	Status	Priority	Description	Resource	In Folder
	Location
Error			Recursive constructor invocation RC()	RC.java	Crap/src
	line 4 in RC.RC(int)
Error			Recursive constructor invocation RC(int)	RC.java
	Crap/src	line 7 in RC.RC()

public class RC {
	RC(int i){
		this();
	}
	RC(){
		this(0);
	}
}

Can you provide a test case reproducing what you see ?

Comment 2 Craig Miskell

2002-11-14 16:22:53 EST

Sure can. I should have initially, but I thought it was a simple case (obviously
it's not, and I apologize for assuming you guys had missed something simple).

It appears to be when the constructor would recurse to itself, but there's
another constructor with the same number of args or something like that.  

Test case below:

public class TestEclipseBug { 

	private Object root;
	private Number count;

    public TestEclipseBug(Class rootClass) {
    	this(rootClass, null);
    }

   public TestEclipseBug(Class rootClass, Number count) {
    	this.root=rootClass;
    	this.count=count;
    }  

	public TestEclipseBug(String objEntityName) {
		this(objEntityName);
	}
	
	public TestEclipseBug(String aName, Number count) {
    	this.root=aName;
    	this.count=count;
   	}
	
}

Comment 3 Philipe Mulet

2002-11-14 17:25:22 EST

Indeed, we have a problem. 3rd constructor should be blamed.

Comment 4 Philipe Mulet

2002-11-21 07:51:49 EST

Fixed in latest

Comment 5 David Audel

2002-12-17 10:28:51 EST

Verified.