[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BCEL-34?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
Sebb updated BCEL-34:
---------------------
Summary: PUTFIELD check erroneous (was: PUTFIELD check erraneous)
> PUTFIELD check erroneous
> ------------------------
>
> Key: BCEL-34
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BCEL-34
> Project: Commons BCEL
> Issue Type: Bug
> Components: Main
> Affects Versions: unspecified
> Environment: Operating System: other
> Platform: Other
> Reporter: Enver Haase
> Assignee: Apache Commons Developers
> Attachments: LUCA.tar
>
>
> [reported by Luca Martini] [email protected]
> However, even if this check is done only on protected field (as stated in
> vmspec) the Standard Verifier checks it even for public fields (and it seems
> reasonable). You can try the stupid enclosed example (in Jasmin syntax): in
> this
> case I substituted the putfield object reference of type with a reference of
> type B. JustIce signals no error while the native verifier reports:
> Exception in thread "main" java.lang.VerifyError: (class: A, method: m
> signature: (ILB;)V) Incompatible type for getting or setting field
> ----
> I think I was wrong saying:
> ~~> However, even if this check is done only on protected field (as stated in
> ~~> vmspec) the Standard Verifier checks it even for public fields (and it
> seems
> ~~> reasonable).
> The example I send to you gives an error while checking that the value stored
> by
> the putfield is compatible with the descriptor of the reference field. Is it
> this check in Justice? It seems not.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)
