Assertions in static blocks ?
Ulf Zibis
Ulf.Zibis at gmx.de
Fri Mar 5 15:08:16 PST 2010
Neal, Keith, thanks for your answer.
... but shouldn't javac claim, that there the code in the static block
will be *never reached*, if there is no trigger to run it?
-Ulf
Am 05.03.2010 22:59, schrieb Neal Gafter:
> On Fri, Mar 5, 2010 at 1:47 PM, Ulf Zibis <Ulf.Zibis at gmx.de
> <mailto:Ulf.Zibis at gmx.de>> wrote:
>
> No response ?? :-(
>
>
> Keith's response is correct. An assertion in a method only occurs
> when the method is executed. An assertion in a constructor only
> occurs when the constructor is called. An assertion in a static
> initializer only occurs when the class is statically initialized.
> Accessing a constant of the class does not initialize the class. So
> there is no bug.
>
> Cheers,
> Neal
>
>
> I've filed a bug:
>
> internal review ID of 1730072
>
>
> -Ulf
>
>
>
> Am 12.02.2010 15:44, schrieb Ulf Zibis:
>
> Am 12.02.2010 15:06, schrieb Ulf Zibis:
>
> Hi,
>
> in the following example, I have an assert statement in a
> static block of my class.
>
> If accessing the static final constants from another
> class, the static block is not executed.
> This causes the assertions to remain un-proofed, even if
> -ea -esa is set.
>
> Is that correct ?
>
>
> If yes, javac should claim the code as never reached.
>
>
> IMO, assertions should always run, if -ea -esa is set.
>
> -Ulf
>
>
> -Ulf
>
>
> >From - Fri Feb 12 16:25:03 2010
> X-Account-Key: account2
> X-UIDL: 5de5c7b81a751aec6aed7ffb66ca9b90
> X-Mozilla-Status: 0000
> X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000
> X-Mozilla-Keys:
> X-Symantec-TimeoutProtection: 0
> X-Symantec-TimeoutProtection: 1
> X-Symantec-TimeoutProtection: 2
> Return-Path: <Keith.McGuigan at Sun.COM>
> X-Flags: 1001
> Delivered-To: GMX delivery to ulf.zibis at gmx.de
> <mailto:ulf.zibis at gmx.de>
> Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 12 Feb 2010 15:12:59 -0000
> Received: from brmea-mail-2.Sun.COM
> <http://brmea-mail-2.Sun.COM> (EHLO brmea-mail-2.sun.com
> <http://brmea-mail-2.sun.com>) [192.18.98.43]
> by mx0.gmx.net <http://mx0.gmx.net> (mx002) with SMTP; 12 Feb
> 2010 16:12:59 +0100
> Received: from fe-amer-09.sun.com <http://fe-amer-09.sun.com>
> ([192.18.109.79])
> by brmea-mail-2.sun.com <http://brmea-mail-2.sun.com>
> (8.13.6+Sun/8.12.9) with ESMTP id o1CFCw62027512
> for <Ulf.Zibis at gmx.de <mailto:Ulf.Zibis at gmx.de>>; Fri, 12
> Feb 2010 15:12:58 GMT
> MIME-version: 1.0
> Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
> Content-type: text/plain; CHARSET=US-ASCII; format=flowed
> Received: from conversion-daemon.mail-amer.sun.com
> <http://conversion-daemon.mail-amer.sun.com> by
> mail-amer.sun.com <http://mail-amer.sun.com>
> (Sun Java(tm) System Messaging Server 7u2-7.04 64bit (built
> Jul 2 2009))
> id <0KXQ00800HZH3I00 at mail-amer.sun.com
> <mailto:0KXQ00800HZH3I00 at mail-amer.sun.com>> for
> Ulf.Zibis at gmx.de <mailto:Ulf.Zibis at gmx.de>; Fri,
> 12 Feb 2010 08:12:58 -0700 (MST)
> Received: from [129.150.65.45] ([unknown] [129.150.65.45])
> by mail-amer.sun.com <http://mail-amer.sun.com> (Sun Java(tm)
> System Messaging Server 7u2-7.04 64bit
> (built Jul 2 2009)) with ESMTPSA id
> <0KXQ00GTLI9L1V60 at mail-amer.sun.com
> <mailto:0KXQ00GTLI9L1V60 at mail-amer.sun.com>>; Fri,
> 12 Feb 2010 08:12:58 -0700 (MST)
> Date: Fri, 12 Feb 2010 10:12:58 -0500
> From: Keith McGuigan <Keith.McGuigan at Sun.COM>
> Subject: Re: Assertions in static blocks ?
> In-reply-to: <4B756071.4000104 at gmx.de
> <mailto:4B756071.4000104 at gmx.de>>
> Sender: Keith.McGuigan at Sun.COM
> To: Ulf Zibis <Ulf.Zibis at gmx.de <mailto:Ulf.Zibis at gmx.de>>
> Cc: compiler-dev at openjdk.java.net
> <mailto:compiler-dev at openjdk.java.net>, hotspot
> <hotspot-dev at openjdk.java.net
> <mailto:hotspot-dev at openjdk.java.net>>
> Message-id: <4B756FFA.9000806 at sun.com
> <mailto:4B756FFA.9000806 at sun.com>>
> References: <4B756071.4000104 at gmx.de
> <mailto:4B756071.4000104 at gmx.de>>
> User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.23 (X11/20090817)
> X-GMX-Antivirus: 0 (no virus found)
> X-GMX-Antispam: 0 (Mail was not recognized as spam);
> Detail=5D7Q89H36p77e5KAPs1l6v/Sb97LojnDmtyzoN37OXMt9GpYHsrWRra7o+psEYuNg/dar
>
> zWRIb1W0k0rd15IZBf9O4nqjKYX9PrVGG/zPEENchmY89mOrfO0W57R8iRtiMheMiqQP1ym7bl2H
>
> PZZzg==V1;
> X-GMX-UID: ylpHc/1fPjlsBVAdATU22s0zMTE2Ncn9
>
>
>
> Hi Ulf -
>
> Accessing a constant static field in a class does not trigger
> class initialization, so your initializer is probably just not
> being run.
>
> See
> http://java.sun.com/docs/books/jvms/second_edition/html/Concepts.doc.html#19075
>
>
> --
> - Keith
>
> Ulf Zibis wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> in the following example, I have an assert statement in a
> static block of my class.
>
> If accessing the static final constants from another
> class, the static block is not executed.
> This causes the assertions to remain un-proofed, even if
> -ea -esa is set.
>
> Is that correct ?
>
> IMO, assertions should always run, if -ea -esa is set.
>
> -Ulf
>
>
>
> package sun.nio.cs.ext;
>
> import static sun.nio.cs.CharsetMapping.*;
>
> /**
> *
> * @author Ulf Zibis, Cologne CoSoCo.de
> */
> class EUC_TWMapping3 extends EUC_TWMapping {
> static final short PL0_5_B2C_RANGE = 0x2300; // plane
> 0, 5 b2c range
> static final short PLANE_B2C_RANGE = 0x1f00; // plane
> 2..4, 6..15 b2c range
>
> // TODO: file bug: static block should run, if assertions
> are enabled.
> static {
> // assert plane offsets and content
> for (int p=0, range, offset=0; p<b2c.length; p++) {
> range = p % 4 == 0 ? PL0_5_B2C_RANGE :
> PLANE_B2C_RANGE;
> for (int i=range; i<b2c[p].length(); i++)
> assert b2c[p].charAt(i) == UNMAPPABLE_DECODING;
> // static block should run, if assertions are enabled. For
> test uncomment following line
> // System.out.printf("offset: %d, range: %d,
> b2c[p].length(): %d%n", offset, range, b2c[p].length());
> assert (offset += range) <= Character.MAX_VALUE
> + 1;
> }
> }
>
> // WORKAROUND:
> // static int offset = 0; // assert from calling
> context to force static block to process
> // static {
> // // assert plane offsets and content
> // for (int p=0, range; p<b2c.length; p++) {
> // range = p % 4 == 0 ? PL0_5_B2C_RANGE :
> PLANE_B2C_RANGE;
> // for (int i=range; i<b2c[p].length(); i++)
> // assert b2c[p].charAt(i) ==
> UNMAPPABLE_DECODING;
> //// static block should run, if assertions are enabled.
> For test uncomment following line
> //// System.out.printf("offset: %d, range: %d,
> b2c[p].length(): %d%n", offset, range, b2c[p].length());
> // assert (offset += range) <=
> Character.MAX_VALUE + 1;
> // }
> //// static block should run, if assertions are enabled.
> For test uncomment following line
> //// assert false;
> // }
> }
>
>
> package sun.nio.cs.ext;
>
> /**
> *
> * @author Ulf Zibis, Cologne CoSoCo.de
> */
> public class AssertTest {
>
> public static void main(String... args) {
> // static block in EUC_TWMapping3 should run, if
> assertions are enabled.
> System.out.println(EUC_TWMapping3.PLANE_B2C_RANGE);
> // WORKAROUND: For test uncomment following line
> // assert EUC_TWMapping3.offset > 0; // force
> assertion, TODO: JDK bug ?
> }
> }
>
>
>
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/compiler-dev/attachments/20100306/cd135c4b/attachment.html
More information about the compiler-dev
mailing list