There is a "NameAndType" structure in the constants pool in .class file.
It is used for dynamic binding.
All methods that class can "export" described as "signature + return type".
Like
"getVector()Ljava/util/Vector;"
That breakes my code when return type of the method in some .jar is changed, even if new type is narrower.
i.e:
I have the following code:
List l = some.getList();
External .jar contains:
public List getList()
Than external jar changes method signature to
public ArrayList getList().
And my code dies in run-time with NoSuchMethodException, because it can't find
getList()Ljava/util/List;
So, I have to recompile my code.
I do not have to change it. Just recompile absolutely the same code!
That also gives ability to have two methods with one signature, but different return types! Compiler would not accept it, but it is possible to do it via direct opcoding.
My questions is why?
Why they did it?
I have only one idea: to prevent sophisticated type checking in the runtime.
You need to look up to the hierarchy and check if there is a parent with List interface.
It takes time, and only compiler has it. JVM does not.
Am I right?
thanks.
One reason may be because method overloading (as opposed to overriding) is determined at compile time. Consider the following methods:
public void doSomething(List util) {}
public void doSomething(ArrayList util) {}
And consider code:
doSomething(getList());
If Java allowed the return type to change and did not throw an exception, the method called would still be doSomething(List) until you recompiled - then it would be doSomething(ArrayList). Which would mean that working code would change behavior just for having recompiled it.
Related
I don't or can't modify the Java source code. The goal to configure just the Kotlin compiler to know what is nullable and what isn't.
You can specify the type manually if you know something will never be null. For example, if you have the following Java code:
public static Foo test() {
return null;
}
and you call it in Kotlin like this:
val result = Foo.test()
then result will have a type of Foo! by default – which means it can be either Foo or Foo?.. the compiler doesn't have enough information to determine that.
However, you can force the type manually:
val result: Foo = Foo.test()
// use "result" as a non-nullable type
Of course, if at runtime that is not true, you'll get a NullPointerException.
For reference, please check the documentation.
I don't know of a way to configure the compiler for this, but IntelliJ IDEA has a feature that allows you to add annotations to code via an XML file called external annotations.
You can add the Jetbrains #Nullable and #NotNull annotations to library code, but when I've tried it, it only results in compiler warnings rather than errors when you use incorrect nullability in your code. These same annotations generate compiler errors when used directly in the source code. I don't know why there is a difference in behavior.
You can use extension functions for this. If you have a method String foo() in the class Test, you can define the extension function
fun Test.safeFoo(): String = this.foo()!!
The advantage is that the code is pretty obious.
The disadvantage of this approach is that you need to write a lot of boiler plate code. You also have to define the extension function in a place where all your modules or projects can see it. Also, writing that much code just to avoid !! feels like overkill.
It should also be possible to write a Kotlin compiler extension which generates them for you but the extension would need to know which methods never return null.
I am using ByteBuddy to generate a class.
Prior to working with DynamicType.Builder, I was going to store a MethodCall as an instance variable:
private final MethodCall frobCall =
MethodCall.invoke(ElementMatchers.named("frob")); // here I invoke a method I'm going to define as part of the instrumented type
Then later in my generation logic for the instrumented type I define the frob method to do something:
.defineMethod("frob")
.intercept(...etc....) // here I define frob to do something
…and I define the (let's say) baz method to invoke frob:
.defineMethod("baz")
.withParameter(...) // etc.
.intercept(frobCall); // invokes "frob", which I've just defined above
(I am trying to keep this simple and may have mistyped something but I hope you can see the gist of what I'm trying to do.)
When I make() my DynamicType, I receive an error that indicates that the dynamic type does not define frob. This is mystifying to me, because of course I have defined it, as you can see above.
Is there some restriction I am unaware of that prohibits ElementMatchers from identifying instrumented type methods that are defined later? Do I really have to use MethodDescription.Latent here?
It should match all methods of the instrumented type. If this is not happening as expected, please set a breakpoint in MethodCall.MethodLocator.ForElementMatcher to see why the method is not showing up. I assume it is filtered by your method matcher.
I noticed however that it did not include private methods which is now fixed and will be released within Byte Buddy 1.10.18.
I am currently writing a wrapper for a native C++ class in CLI/C++. I am on a little GamePacket class at the moment. Consider the following class:
public ref class GamePacket
{
public:
GamePacket();
~GamePacket();
generic<typename T>
where T : System::ValueType
void Write(T value)
{
this->bw->Write(value);
}
};
I want that I'm able to call the function as following in C#, using my Wrapper:
Packet.Write<Int32>(1234);
Packet.Write<byte>(1);
However, I can't compile my wrapper. Error:
Error 1 error C2664: 'void System::IO::BinaryWriter::Write(System::String ^)' : cannot convert argument 1 from 'T' to 'bool'
I don't understand this error, where does the System::String^ comes from. I'm seeing a lot of overloads of the Write() method, does CLI/C++ not call the correct one, and if so, how can I make it call the correct one?
Reference MSDN: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/system.io.binarywriter.write(v=vs.110).aspx
Templates and generics don't work the same.
With templates, the code gets recompiled for each set of parameters, and the results can be pretty different (different local variable types, different function overloads selected). Specialization makes this really powerful.
With generics, the code only gets compiled once, and the overload resolution is done without actually knowing the final parameters. So when you call Write(value), the only things the compiler knows is that
value can be converted to Object^, because everything can
value derives from ValueType, because your constraint tells it
Unfortunately, using just that information, the compiler can't find an overload of Write that can be used.
It seems like you expected it to use Write(bool) when T is bool, Write(int) when T is int, and so on. Templates would work like that. Generics don't.
Your options are:
a dozen different copies of your method, each of which has a fixed argument type that can be used to select the right overload of BinaryWrite::Write
find the overload yourself using reflection, make a delegate matching the right overload, and call it
use expression trees or the dynamic language runtime to find and make a delegate matching the right overload, and then you call it
Dart Editor version 1.2.0.release (STABLE). Dart SDK version 1.2.0.
This source code produces runtime exception.
void main() {
test(new Base());
}
void test(Child child) {
}
class Base {
}
class Child extends Base {
}
I assumed that the analyzer generates something like this.
The argument type 'Base' cannot be assigned to the parameter type 'Child'
But I can only detect this error at runtime when occurred this exception (post factum).
Unhandled exception:
type 'Base' is not a subtype of type 'Child' of 'child'.
The analyzer is following the language specification here.
It only warns if a the static type of the argument expression is not assignable to the type of function the parameter.
In Dart, expressions of one type is assignable to variables of another type if either type is a subtype of the other.
That is not a safe type check. It does not find all possible errors. On the other hand, it also does not disallow some correct uses like:
Base foo = new Child();
void action(Child c) { ... }
action(foo); // Perfectly correct code at runtime.
Other languages have safe assignment checks, but they also prevent some correct programs. You then have to add (unsafe/runtime checked) cast operators to tell the compiler that you know the program is safe. It's a trade-off where Dart has chosen to be permissive and avoid most casts.
Let's try to be polite and answer the question without any prejudice.
I think I understand what you expected and here my angle on what the error means:
You are invoking the method with the argument of type Base
The method is expecting an argument of type Child
The Child is not equal to the Base, neither is a subtype of it (as a fact it is the Child that is a subtype of the Base)
It is working as expected as it makes only sense to provide object of the expected type (or it's subtypes - specialisations).
Update:
After reading again your question I realised that you are pointing out that editor is not finding the type problem. I assume this is due to the point that Dart programs are dynamic and hence certain checks are not done before the runtime.
Hope it helps ;-)
In my language I can use a class variable in my method when the definition appears below the method. It can also call methods below my method and etc. There are no 'headers'. Take this C# example.
class A
{
public void callMethods() { print(); B b; b.notYetSeen();
public void print() { Console.Write("v = {0}", v); }
int v=9;
}
class B
{
public void notYetSeen() { Console.Write("notYetSeen()\n"); }
}
How should I compile that? what i was thinking is:
pass1: convert everything to an AST
pass2: go through all classes and build a list of define classes/variable/etc
pass3: go through code and check if there's any errors such as undefined variable, wrong use etc and create my output
But it seems like for this to work I have to do pass 1 and 2 for ALL files before doing pass3. Also it feels like a lot of work to do until I find a syntax error (other than the obvious that can be done at parse time such as forgetting to close a brace or writing 0xLETTERS instead of a hex value). My gut says there is some other way.
Note: I am using bison/flex to generate my compiler.
My understanding of languages that handle forward references is that they typically just use the first pass to build a list of valid names. Something along the lines of just putting an entry in a table (without filling out the definition) so you have something to point to later when you do your real pass to generate the definitions.
If you try to actually build full definitions as you go, you would end up having to rescan repatedly, each time saving any references to undefined things until the next pass. Even that would fail if there are circular references.
I would go through on pass one and collect all of your class/method/field names and types, ignoring the method bodies. Then in pass two check the method bodies only.
I don't know that there can be any other way than traversing all the files in the source.
I think that you can get it down to two passes - on the first pass, build the AST and whenever you find a variable name, add it to a list that contains that blocks' symbols (it would probably be useful to add that list to the corresponding scope in the tree). Step two is to linearly traverse the tree and make sure that each symbol used references a symbol in that scope or a scope above it.
My description is oversimplified but the basic answer is -- lookahead requires at least two passes.
The usual approach is to save B as "unknown". It's probably some kind of type (because of the place where you encountered it). So you can just reserve the memory (a pointer) for it even though you have no idea what it really is.
For the method call, you can't do much. In a dynamic language, you'd just save the name of the method somewhere and check whether it exists at runtime. In a static language, you can save it in under "unknown methods" somewhere in your compiler along with the unknown type B. Since method calls eventually translate to a memory address, you can again reserve the memory.
Then, when you encounter B and the method, you can clear up your unknowns. Since you know a bit about them, you can say whether they behave like they should or if the first usage is now a syntax error.
So you don't have to read all files twice but it surely makes things more simple.
Alternatively, you can generate these header files as you encounter the sources and save them somewhere where you can find them again. This way, you can speed up the compilation (since you won't have to consider unchanged files in the next compilation run).
Lastly, if you write a new language, you shouldn't use bison and flex anymore. There are much better tools by now. ANTLR, for example, can produce a parser that can recover after an error, so you can still parse the whole file. Or check this Wikipedia article for more options.