Bug 160254 - Regression in 3.2.1 - erroneous error final method overrides
Summary: Regression in 3.2.1 - erroneous error final method overrides
Status: VERIFIED DUPLICATE of bug 159973
Alias: None
Product: JDT
Classification: Eclipse Project
Component: Core (show other bugs)
Version: 3.2.1   Edit
Hardware: PC Windows XP
: P3 critical (vote)
Target Milestone: 3.2.2   Edit
Assignee: JDT-Core-Inbox CLA
QA Contact:
URL:
Whiteboard:
Keywords:
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
Reported: 2006-10-09 19:28 EDT by R Lenard CLA
Modified: 2007-01-16 03:21 EST (History)
0 users

See Also:

Attachments
Add an attachment (proposed patch, testcase, etc.)

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description R Lenard CLA 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 ‹y=,h‡,.»Š=,h‡,
	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 CLA 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 CLA 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 CLA 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 CLA 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 CLA 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 CLA 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 CLA 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 CLA 2007-01-16 03:21:08 EST 
Considering it has been verified by the reporter (on the matching level in the HEAD stream).