gcj producing bad code

Sat Apr 6 19:34:00 GMT 2002

Per Bothner wrote:
> The getY() isn't a super invocation - it's the same as
> (super.getX()).getY()
> or even:
> X t = super.getX();
> return t.getY();
>> If we're emitting invokespecial to call getY, then I don't think
> the flaw in actually in the bytecode-generation, but more likely
> the front-end (resolve_qualified_expression_name in parse.y)
> incorrectly setting CALL_WITH_SUPER. 

Yes, there is definately a problem here. super.getX().getY() produces a 
different result to x = super.getX(); x.getY(). We need to fix this for 3.1.
regards
Bryce.