JDK 9 RFR of JDK-8071959: java.lang.Object uses implicit default constructor
Hello, Please review the patch below to fix JDK-8071959: java.lang.Object uses implicit default constructor diff -r 458adf31ad5b src/java.base/share/classes/java/lang/Object.java --- a/src/java.base/share/classes/java/lang/Object.java Thu Jan 29 15:14:44 2015 -0800 +++ b/src/java.base/share/classes/java/lang/Object.java Thu Jan 29 16:00:03 2015 -0800 @@ -42,6 +42,11 @@ } /** + * Constructs a new object. + */ + public Object() {} + + /** * Returns the runtime class of this {@code Object}. The returned * {@code Class} object is the object that is locked by {@code * static synchronized} methods of the represented class. At present, java.lang.Object relies on the default constructor generated by javac; how embarrassing! Thanks, -Joe
+1 Lance Andersen| Principal Member of Technical Staff | +1.781.442.2037 Oracle Java Engineering 1 Network Drive Burlington, MA 01803 Lance.Andersen@oracle.com Sent from my iPad
On Jan 29, 2015, at 7:02 PM, joe darcy <joe.darcy@oracle.com> wrote:
Hello,
Please review the patch below to fix
JDK-8071959: java.lang.Object uses implicit default constructor
diff -r 458adf31ad5b src/java.base/share/classes/java/lang/Object.java --- a/src/java.base/share/classes/java/lang/Object.java Thu Jan 29 15:14:44 2015 -0800 +++ b/src/java.base/share/classes/java/lang/Object.java Thu Jan 29 16:00:03 2015 -0800 @@ -42,6 +42,11 @@ }
/** + * Constructs a new object. + */ + public Object() {} + + /** * Returns the runtime class of this {@code Object}. The returned * {@code Class} object is the object that is locked by {@code * static synchronized} methods of the represented class.
At present, java.lang.Object relies on the default constructor generated by javac; how embarrassing!
Thanks,
-Joe
On 01/30/2015 01:02 AM, joe darcy wrote:
Hello,
Please review the patch below to fix
JDK-8071959: java.lang.Object uses implicit default constructor
diff -r 458adf31ad5b src/java.base/share/classes/java/lang/Object.java --- a/src/java.base/share/classes/java/lang/Object.java Thu Jan 29 15:14:44 2015 -0800 +++ b/src/java.base/share/classes/java/lang/Object.java Thu Jan 29 16:00:03 2015 -0800 @@ -42,6 +42,11 @@ }
/** + * Constructs a new object. + */ + public Object() {} + + /** * Returns the runtime class of this {@code Object}. The returned * {@code Class} object is the object that is locked by {@code * static synchronized} methods of the represented class.
At present, java.lang.Object relies on the default constructor generated by javac; how embarrassing!
Thanks,
-Joe
Is javac able to compile it correctly? It never had to do that before (it inserted an implicit one instead). I guess the constructor in Object is special, since it does not call a super constructor. Peter
Hi Good question, but javac should be fine. I had to look it up, but there is logic to omit super() when generating the default ctor for Object (TypeEnter::DefaultConstructor), and also logic for omitting super() if we are compiling an explicit ctor for Object (Attr::visitMethodDef). Looks good Joe, perhaps you could do a boot-cycle build just to be on the safe side? cheers /Joel .
On 30 jan 2015, at 15:52, Peter Levart <peter.levart@gmail.com> wrote:
On 01/30/2015 01:02 AM, joe darcy wrote:
Hello,
Please review the patch below to fix
JDK-8071959: java.lang.Object uses implicit default constructor
diff -r 458adf31ad5b src/java.base/share/classes/java/lang/Object.java --- a/src/java.base/share/classes/java/lang/Object.java Thu Jan 29 15:14:44 2015 -0800 +++ b/src/java.base/share/classes/java/lang/Object.java Thu Jan 29 16:00:03 2015 -0800 @@ -42,6 +42,11 @@ }
/** + * Constructs a new object. + */ + public Object() {} + + /** * Returns the runtime class of this {@code Object}. The returned * {@code Class} object is the object that is locked by {@code * static synchronized} methods of the represented class.
At present, java.lang.Object relies on the default constructor generated by javac; how embarrassing!
Thanks,
-Joe
Is javac able to compile it correctly? It never had to do that before (it inserted an implicit one instead). I guess the constructor in Object is special, since it does not call a super constructor.
Peter
Hello, I was concerned about the special cases handling in javac might be problematic and made sure to do a build before I pushed the change. Since pushing the change yesterday, all the internal builds have been fine so I think we are in the clear :-) Thanks, -Joe On 1/30/2015 11:58 AM, Joel Borggrén-Franck wrote:
Hi
Good question, but javac should be fine. I had to look it up, but there is logic to omit super() when generating the default ctor for Object (TypeEnter::DefaultConstructor), and also logic for omitting super() if we are compiling an explicit ctor for Object (Attr::visitMethodDef).
Looks good Joe, perhaps you could do a boot-cycle build just to be on the safe side?
cheers /Joel .
On 30 jan 2015, at 15:52, Peter Levart <peter.levart@gmail.com> wrote:
On 01/30/2015 01:02 AM, joe darcy wrote:
Hello,
Please review the patch below to fix
JDK-8071959: java.lang.Object uses implicit default constructor
diff -r 458adf31ad5b src/java.base/share/classes/java/lang/Object.java --- a/src/java.base/share/classes/java/lang/Object.java Thu Jan 29 15:14:44 2015 -0800 +++ b/src/java.base/share/classes/java/lang/Object.java Thu Jan 29 16:00:03 2015 -0800 @@ -42,6 +42,11 @@ }
/** + * Constructs a new object. + */ + public Object() {} + + /** * Returns the runtime class of this {@code Object}. The returned * {@code Class} object is the object that is locked by {@code * static synchronized} methods of the represented class.
At present, java.lang.Object relies on the default constructor generated by javac; how embarrassing!
Thanks,
-Joe Is javac able to compile it correctly? It never had to do that before (it inserted an implicit one instead). I guess the constructor in Object is special, since it does not call a super constructor.
Peter
participants (4)
-
joe darcy
-
Joel Borggrén-Franck
-
Lance ＠ Oracle
-
Peter Levart