PR java/16927 [Was Re: PATCH for better assertion control.]

Thu Sep 23 17:38:00 GMT 2004

>>>>> "Andrew" == Andrew Haley <aph@redhat.com> writes:

Andrew> The obvious fix is not to generate code for the assertion at all -- it
Andrew> cannot be executed -- but simply return a null statement. However,
Andrew> you've gone to some trouble here not to do the "obvious" thing. Is
Andrew> there a special reason why? Maybe warnings for unused args or
Andrew> something like that?
My recollection of this is that whether we generate code for
assertions is independent of definite assignment checks. I think code
like this is invalid, but will pass gcj if we simply don't generate
the trees:
 final boolean x;
 assert x = true;
 x = false; // x not definitely unassigned
Tom