Bug 85062 - [compiler] Implicit static method invocation should target the receiver type not the declaring class
Summary: [compiler] Implicit static method invocation should target the receiver type ...
Status: VERIFIED FIXED
Alias: None
Product: JDT
Classification: Eclipse Project
Component: Core (show other bugs)
Version: 3.1   Edit
Hardware: PC Windows XP
: P3 normal (vote)
Target Milestone: 3.1 M6   Edit
Assignee: Philipe Mulet CLA
QA Contact:
URL:
Whiteboard:
Keywords:
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
Reported: 2005-02-11 16:51 EST by Olivier Thomann CLA
Modified: 2005-03-31 09:17 EST (History)
1 user (show)

See Also:

Attachments
Apply on HEAD (3.51 KB, patch)
2005-02-11 16:52 EST, Olivier Thomann CLA 		no flags Details | Diff
View All 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 Olivier Thomann CLA 2005-02-11 16:51:12 EST 
In this example,

class A { 
    static int foo() { 
        return 10;
    }
    
	static int bar() { 
        return 11;
    }    
}

public class X extends A {
    public static void main(String argv[]) {
        int i = A.foo();
        int j = bar();
        System.out.println(i + " - " + j);
    }
}

The method invocation A.foo() should have the declaring class A, but the method
invocation bar() should have the declaring class X. Not A.
Comment 1 Olivier Thomann CLA 2005-02-11 16:52:27 EST 
Created attachment 17877 [details]
Apply on HEAD

This patch fixes the declaring class by using the actualReceiverType if the
receiver is an implicit this.
Comment 2 Olivier Thomann CLA 2005-02-11 16:57:28 EST 
I am not sure that the test if (receiver.isImplicitThis()) { is required,
because the actualReceiverType is fine in both cases.
Comment 3 Philipe Mulet CLA 2005-02-19 12:16:02 EST 
Consider static receiver type from 1.4 compliance on, also had to tweak lookup
using static imports to properly set the actualReceiverType.

Updated Compliance_1* tests to match new behavior.
We now match 1.4.2 (and no longer 1.4.1).
Fixed
Comment 4 David Audel CLA 2005-03-31 09:17:46 EST 
Verified in I20050330-0500