|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, May 13 2012 @ 12:02 PM EDT |
Oops.
"Print the value stored at memory address 2"
those should all be
"Print the value stored at memory address 1"
(this is why we let compilers do the compiling, humans make too many mistakes)[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Ian Al on Sunday, May 13 2012 @ 12:09 PM EDT |
That seems to be what the patent is about.
---
Regards
Ian Al
Software Patents: It's the disclosed functions in the patent, stupid![ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 14 2012 @ 04:18 PM EDT |
The idea that "The symbolic references have already been resolved in the
bytecode." is not going to fly. While it might have been the case (It
isn't.) that the compiler could resolved symbolic references from a bytecode in
one class to something (a field or method) in that same class, the compiler
can't write a .class file for a class in which symbolic references to some
-other- class have been resolved.
The other class, which must have been compiled at the time the compiler resolved
the references to it, may be recompiled from incompatible source before the
given .class file runs. In that case the symbolic reference can't be resolved
and the code throws a java.lang.NoSuchFieldError or similar error when it's run
in a JVM.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
