[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: More finalize woes
From: |
Sascha Brawer |
Subject: |
Re: More finalize woes |
Date: |
Thu, 6 Mar 2003 18:01:59 +0100 |
Tom Tromey <address@hidden> wrote on Thu, 6 Mar 2003 08:44:53 -0700:
>Binary compatibility rules allow a class
>implementor to add a finalize method at any time in the future. For
>this reason, all finalizers should call super.finalize(). In fact, if
>we add an empty finalize method, then that is a potential (if
>unlikely) bug -- if we ever add a finalizer in a superclass, oops.
So, should a Java-to-Bytecode compiler emit a warning if a finalize()
implementation does not call super.finalize()? This might be a suggestion
for gcj, jikes, javac etc. Also, we might want to add a note to the
Classpath hacker's guide.
-- Sascha
- More finalize woes, Jeroen Frijters, 2003/03/04
- Re: More finalize woes, Aaron M. Renn, 2003/03/04
- Re: More finalize woes, Dalibor Topic, 2003/03/04
- Re: More finalize woes, Chris Gray, 2003/03/06
- Re: More finalize woes, Tom Tromey, 2003/03/06
- Re: More finalize woes,
Sascha Brawer <=
- Re: More finalize woes, Artur Biesiadowski, 2003/03/06
- Re: More finalize woes, Stephen Crawley, 2003/03/06
- Re: More finalize woes, Per Bothner, 2003/03/06
- Re: More finalize woes, Stephen Crawley, 2003/03/06
- Re: More finalize woes, Stephen Crawley, 2003/03/06
- Re: More finalize woes, Per Bothner, 2003/03/06
- Re: More finalize woes, Stephen Crawley, 2003/03/06
- Re: More finalize woes, Per Bothner, 2003/03/07
- Re: More finalize woes, Tom Tromey, 2003/03/06
- Re: More finalize woes, Brian Jones, 2003/03/06