Re: error: 'jvariant::jvariant(jbyte)' cannot be overloaded

On Tue, Jul 21, 2009 at 9:48 AM, Andrew Haley<[email protected]> wrote:
> On 07/21/2009 08:16 AM, Mathieu Malaterre wrote:
>> On Sun, Jul 19, 2009 at 5:16 PM, Andrew Haley<[email protected]> wrote:
>>> On 07/19/2009 09:17 AM, Florian Weimer wrote:
>>>> * Andrew Haley:
>>>>
>>>>> On 07/19/2009 07:02 AM, Florian Weimer wrote:
>>>>>> * Mathieu Malaterre:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>   I am trying to compile VTK using gcj and I am getting those compiler
>>>>>>> error, could someone please let me know if the code is legal (should
>>>>>>> compile) or not:
>>>>>> This is legal per Sun's JNI specficiation: jboolean and jbyte are
>>>>>> distinct types because there signedness differs:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> <http://java.sun.com/javase/6/docs/technotes/guides/jni/spec/types.html#wp198>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It's a bug in GCC.
>>>>> I didn't see the original message to which this is replying.
>>>> It's about C++ code which contains a function overloaded on jbyte and
>>>> jboolean.  This fails with GCJ because they are typedef'ed to the same
>>>> type.
>>>>
>>>>> If you can make a test case I'll see if the bug can be fixed.
>>>> Compare the table I referenced with these pieces from jni_md.h:
>>>>
>>>> | typedef int    jbyte  __attribute__((__mode__(__QI__)));
>>>> | typedef int    jshort __attribute__((__mode__(__HI__)));
>>>> | typedef int    jint   __attribute__((__mode__(__SI__)));
>>>> | typedef int    jlong  __attribute__((__mode__(__DI__)));
>>>> | typedef int    jboolean __attribute__((__mode__(__QI__)));
>>>> | typedef unsigned short jchar __attribute__((__mode__(__HI__)));
>>>> | typedef float  jfloat;
>>>> | typedef double jdouble;
>>>> | typedef jint jsize;
>>>>
>>>> | typedef int8_t jbyte;
>>>> | typedef int16_t jshort;
>>>> | typedef int32_t jint;
>>>> | typedef int64_t jlong;
>>>> | typedef float jfloat;
>>>> | typedef double jdouble;
>>>> | typedef jint jsize;
>>>> | typedef int8_t jboolean;
>>>> | typedef uint16_t jchar;
>>>>
>>>> jboolean is signed, but Sun's spec says it should be unsigned.
>>> OK.  I can fix it, but it's an ABI-incompatible change.  There's no
>>> way this fix could be applied to any existing releases, only gcc
>>> 4.5.
>>
>> Excellent ! Is there a bug entry so I can follow the process ?
>
> Not until you make one.

Done:

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40816


-- 
Mathieu