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.lev...@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
>
