Issue 9264022: Protect vs. NPE in TypeAnalyzer.checkInitializedDeclaration()

Keyboard Shortcuts

	File
u :	up to issue
j / k :	jump to file after / before current file
J / K :	jump to next file with a comment after / before current file
	Side-by-side diff
i :	toggle intra-line diffs
e :	expand all comments
c :	collapse all comments
s :	toggle showing all comments
n / p :	next / previous diff chunk or comment
N / P :	next / previous comment
<Up> / <Down> :	next / previous line

	Issue
u :	up to list of issues
j / k :	jump to patch after / before current patch
o / <Enter> :	open current patch in side-by-side view
i :	open current patch in unified diff view

	Issue List
j / k :	jump to issue after / before current issue
o / <Enter> :	open current issue

Issue 9264022: Protect vs. NPE in TypeAnalyzer.checkInitializedDeclaration() (Closed)

Created:
8 years, 11 months ago by zundel

Modified:
8 years, 11 months ago

Reviewers:
codefu

CC:
reviews_dartlang.org

Base URL:
https://dart.googlecode.com/svn/branches/bleeding_edge/dart

Visibility:
Public.

More Reviews

Description

Protect vs. NPE in TypeAnalyzer.checkInitializedDeclaration() Stack trace came from user feedback on Dart Editor. See: http://code.google.com/p/dart/issues/detail?id=759 I wish I could reproduce the original problem, but this guard would be sure to fix it. Committed: https://code.google.com/p/dart/source/detail?r=3447

Patch Set 1 #

Created: 8 years, 11 months ago

Download [raw] [tar.bz2]

		Unified diffs	Side-by-side diffs	Delta from patch set	Stats (+1 line, -1 line)			Patch
	M	compiler/java/com/google/dart/compiler/type/TypeAnalyzer.java	View		1 chunk	+1 line, -1 line	0 comments	Download

Messages

Total messages: 3 (0 generated)

Expand Messages | Collapse Messages

codefu

LGTM. I tried to repro the problem earlier, but that only lead down more CL ...

8 years, 11 months ago (2012-01-19 20:36:16 UTC) #2

zundel

8 years, 11 months ago (2012-01-19 20:54:51 UTC) #3

On 2012/01/19 20:36:16, codefu wrote:
> LGTM.  I tried to repro the problem earlier, but that only lead down more CL
> rabbit holes and I didn't pop up to this one.

I tried too.  It may have been fixed in the interim during compile time constant
related fixes, or it may depend on an AST returned from a particular failed
parse.

Expand Messages | Collapse Messages