Bug 69806 - formatter doesn't handle strictfp correctly.
Summary: formatter doesn't handle strictfp correctly.
Status: RESOLVED FIXED
Alias: None
Product: JDT
Classification: Eclipse Project
Component: Core (show other bugs)
Version: 3.0   Edit
Hardware: PC Windows XP
: P3 normal (vote)
Target Milestone: 3.1 M1   Edit
Assignee: Olivier Thomann CLA
QA Contact:
URL:
Whiteboard:
Keywords:
: 85294 (view as bug list)
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
Reported: 2004-07-11 16:16 EDT by Martijn Kruithof CLA
Modified: 2006-02-03 14:10 EST (History)
1 user (show)

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 Martijn Kruithof CLA 2004-07-11 16:16:48 EDT
Comment 1 Martijn Kruithof CLA 2004-07-11 16:20:33 EDT 
In 
package org.eclipse.jdt.internal.formatter;

...
public class Scribe {
...
    public void printModifiers() {
...
                switch(this.currentToken) {
                    case TerminalTokens.TokenNamepublic :
                    case TerminalTokens.TokenNameprotected :
                    case TerminalTokens.TokenNameprivate :
                    case TerminalTokens.TokenNameabstract :
                    case TerminalTokens.TokenNamestatic :
                    case TerminalTokens.TokenNamefinal :
                    case TerminalTokens.TokenNametransient :
                    case TerminalTokens.TokenNamevolatile :
                    case TerminalTokens.TokenNamesynchronized :
                    case TerminalTokens.TokenNamenative :
                    case TerminalTokens.TokenNamestrictfp :

The latter one is missing, because of this declarations using the strictfp
modifier are not treated correctly.
Adding the strictfp token fixes this problem
Comment 2 Olivier Thomann CLA 2004-07-12 16:55:07 EDT 
I will add it.
Comment 3 Olivier Thomann CLA 2004-07-12 18:05:47 EDT 
Fixed and released in HEAD.
Regression test added.

Philippe, I think this is a good candidate for 3.0.1.
Comment 4 Olivier Thomann CLA 2006-02-03 14:10:10 EST 
*** Bug 85294 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***