question related to bug: 8024694

Alex Buckley alex.buckley at
Tue Sep 17 14:13:01 PDT 2013

I added a comment to the bug. This one is a bit subtle but in my view 
it's acceptable for javac to give an implementation-driven error for the 
missing Signature attribute.


On 9/17/2013 8:23 AM, Vicente-Arturo Romero-Zaldivar wrote:
> On 17/09/13 14:13, Remi Forax wrote:
>> On 09/17/2013 02:55 PM, Vicente-Arturo Romero-Zaldivar wrote:
>>> Hi Alex,
>>> I have a doubt related to bug entry [1]. The bug has been created by
>>> someone in the Eclipse community, I assume. As the bug description
>>> states there is a mismatch between javac and Eclipse compiler related
>>> to the generation of a signature for enum constructors. Javac
>>> generates it always, Eclipse (I was trying with ecj-3.7.1) don't
>>> generate it, at least I didn't found a case where it gets generated
>>> by Eclipse. So there is an issue when a class generated with Eclipse
>>> is loaded with javac.
>>> Also in the bug entry there is a link to Eclipse's bug db, [2], where
>>> there are some considerations from Eclipse developers about this
>>> being a javac bug or no.
>>> Could you please clarify if in this case javac is OK according to the
>>> spec and this is not a bug?
>>> Thanks,
>>> Vicente
>>> [1]
>>> [2]
>> In my opinion, there is a bug in javac.
>> javac requires that the constructor of an enum must a Signature
>> attribute but the spec only requires a Signature attribute
>> if the method is generics or use a type variable defined on the class.
>> So eclipse can generate an enum constructor without a Signature
>> attribute and javac should work without
>> requiring this specific attribute.
>> so there are 2 bugs to fix, one is that javac should not generate a
>> Signature attribute and
>> the second one is that javac should work even if the Signature
>> attribute is not defined.
>> Rémi
> Thanks Rémi,
> As a side comment I was trying to make eclipse generate the signature,
> and even including type variables in the constructor declaration,
> eclipse didn't generate the signature. So seems like it's not generating
> the signature even in cases where it should. Probably this has been
> fixed in last versions.
> Vicente

More information about the compiler-dev mailing list